Reardon v. Sadd

• Decision Date: 25 January 1928
• Citation: 262 Mass. 345
• Parties: ETTA S. REARDON v. WADIE SADD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

262 Mass. 345

ETTA S. REARDON v. WADIE SADD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 25, 1928

December 5, 1927.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., BRALEY, CROSBY CARROLL, & SANDERSON, JJ.

Abuse of Process. Attachment.

At the trial of an action of tort for abuse of process, there was evidence that the defendant caused machinery of the plaintiff, a woman, to be attached and removed from her place of business in an action for conversion of shoes left by the defendant under contract with one who hired the plaintiff's machinery for lasting and finishing; that previously an action had been brought by the defendant against the person with whom he had made his contract, in which the same machinery had been placed under attachment, and which was discontinued when the plaintiff had told the defendant's counsel that she owned the place of business where the machinery was, and formally had notified the officer who made the attachment that the machinery was hers; that defendant's counsel, when so informed by the plaintiff, said, "Then you are the one we want to get"; and that the action against the woman followed, in which there was a judgment in her favor which was affirmed by this court. Held, that findings were warranted, that the attachment and removal of the plaintiff's property was intentionally and wilfully done to enforce a claim which the defendant knew was groundless and were an abuse of legal process; and that it was proper to deny a motion that a verdict be ordered for the defendant.

It is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action for abuse of process that the plaintiff show a termination of the action in which the process was issued, nor want of probable cause for instituting it.

TORT, with a writ as amended against Wadie Sadd, sometimes known as Nadie Saad doing business under the name of Puritan Novelty Co. and also of Mary Sadd, and a declaration as amended in two counts. In the first count the plaintiff alleged that the "defendant well knowing that he had no valid claim against the plaintiff, nevertheless sued out a writ, on or about December 11, 1920, against the plaintiff, and on that writ wrongfully attached the property of the plaintiff and removed most of the contents of said factory, and wrongfully used said legal process to deprive the plaintiff of her property, and to ruin her business." In the second count, the plaintiff alleged that the "defendant, maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff, and well knowing that he had no valid claim against the plaintiff, nevertheless sued out a writ against the plaintiff, and removed most of the contents of said factory and interfered with the plaintiff's business and ruined it." Writ dated April 22, 1925.

In the Superior Court, the action was tried before Macleod, J. Material evidence is stated in the opinion. At the close of the evidence, the defendant moved that a verdict be entered in her favor. The motion was denied. The record states: "The case was submitted to the jury under instructions of the court which are not excepted to." There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,500. The defendant alleged exceptions.

C.H. Loring, for the defendant. A.L. Millan, for the plaintiff.

BRALEY, J. In this action the jury warrantably could find that in November 1920, Lewis Reardon occupied a part of the third floor of a building numbered 20 Olive Place, Boston, as a manufacturer of shoes or parts of shoes; that the plaintiff, now the wife of Reardon but at that...