Powell v. Cohen
| Decision Date | 20 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 42894,42894,3 |
| Citation | 156 S.E.2d 495,116 Ga.App. 48 |
| Parties | Arthur L. POWELL v. Sol COHEN |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A petition alleging in substance that the plaintiff delivered property to the defendant for repair, that the defendant failed to make repairs and remove certain components so as to render the property completely unusable, that on the defendant's refusal to perform plaintiff stopped payment on a check previously delivered, and that thereafter the defendant falsely and maliciously charged him with uttering a check without sufficient funds, knowing this to be untrue; that the prosecution ended favorably to the plaintiff and that he suffered damages, sufficiently states a cause of action.
The plaintiff Powell alleged that the defendant, a bicycle repairman, accepted plaintiff's bicycle for the purpose of tightening the chain guard, adjusting the handle bars, aligning the front wheel, and greasing. Prior to examining the work done he paid the defendant a $5.75 charge by check, but on examination found that not only had the work not been done, but a chain guard had been removed and the bicycle rendered unusable. He thereupon informed the defendant that unless the work was 'made good' he would stop payment on the check. The defendant refused. Plaintiff, who had sufficient funds in the bank to cover the check, notified the bank to stop payment and this was done. The defendant then knowingly falsely represented by affidavit sworn out for the purpose of having plaintiff arrested that the check had been returned for insufficient funds and that plaintiff was quilty of the offense of giving a bad check with intent to defraud. The defendant acted solely from malice, knowing that plaintiff did have sufficient funds in the bank, that payment was not refused for that reason, and after refusal to repair the bicycle and notice that payment for the repairs claimed would be stopped unless he did so, in all of which he was actuated by malice against the plaintiff. At the commitment hearing he gave knowingly false testimony against the plaintiff to the same effect. The plaintiff was thereupon confined in jail for two days before he could make bond and suffered various special damages including loss of earnings. Thereafter he was tried and acquitted. The entire prosecution was carried on by the defendant wilfully, falsely, maliciously, and without probable cause.
The petition was dismissed on general demurrer and plaintiff appeals.
N. T. Anderson, Atlanta, for appellant.
Rose, Silverman & Hunt, George S. Stern, Atlanta, for appellee.
A cause of action for malicious prosecution is set out where it is shown: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Smith v. State
-
Primas v. Saulsberry, 58653
...malicious prosecution is 'that the criminal prosecution was finally terminated legally in favor of the plaintiff.' Powell v. Cohen, 116 Ga.App. 48, 50, 156 S.E.2d 495 (1967). 'The prosecution must be ended before the right of action accrues.' Code Ann. § 105-806." Earlywine v. Strickland, 1......
-
Earlywine v. Strickland, 55538
...malicious prosecution is "that the criminal prosecution was finally terminated legally in favor of the plaintiff." Powell v. Cohen, 116 Ga.App. 48, 50, 156 S.E.2d 495 (1967). "The prosecution must be ended before the right of action accrues." Code Ann. § Under Code Ann. § 27-1801, "a nolle ......
-
Gooch v. Tudor, A09A0299.
...makes a false statement to police for the purpose of achieving some personal goal, such as revenge or the collection of a debt. See Powell v. Cohen.7 Malice may also be found where the plaintiff's arrest is premised on the defendant's knowingly false statement to the police, regardless of t......