Ryerson v. American Sur. Co. of New York
| Decision Date | 05 December 1963 |
| Citation | 373 S.W.2d 436,17 McCanless 182,213 Tenn. 182 |
| Parties | , 213 Tenn. 182 Edgar A. RYERSON v. AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Griffin, Memphis, for plaintiff in error.
Lake Hays, Laughlin, Watson, Creson, Garthright & Halle, Memphis, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal from the action of the trial judge in sustaining the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration. The sole question raised on this appeal is whether the plaintiff's declaration states a cause of action.
In this declaration, plaintiff alleges that on May 30, 1961, the defendant instituted a civil action against him; that the action was subsequently terminated in the plaintiff's favor; that it was brought maliciously and without probable cause; and that as a result of the institution and prosecution of this lawsuit, he has incurred certain expenses and suffered injury to his professional reputation as a C.P.A. For convenience the prior action on which this action is based will hereinafter sometimes be referred to as the first suit.
The defendant does not contend that an action will not lie from malicious prosecution of a civil suit. That such an action will lie has been recognized in this State since the case of Lipscomb v. Shofner, 96 Tenn. 112, 33 S.W. 818 (1896). But the defendant does contend that this particular action cannot be maintained because the declaration 'shows on its face that all allegations attributable to the defendant grew out of certain statements contained in a suit styled Hughes Grocery Company v. Edgar A. Ryerson * * * and are absolutely privileged; and therefore cannot be used as a basis for a suit in the State of Tennessee.'
After stating the style of the first suit, the plaintiff's declaration recites certain allegations in the first suit; and in a subsequent part of the declaration, he alleges that the 'slightest investigation' would have revealed that these allegations in the first suit were not true. These are the 'statements' to which the demurrer apparently has reference.
In support of its contention, the defendant cites the case of Jones v. Trice, 210 Tenn. 535, 360 S.W.2d 48 (1962). In Jones we held that: 'statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding, if pertinent or relevant, are absolutely privileged' and that, therefore, the plaintiff could not maintain an action for libel grounded on a statement made in the motion for a new trial. But we did not hold that the falsity of a statement made in the course of a judicial proceeding could not be used to show that there was a lack of probable cause for the institution of the proceeding.
It must be kept in mind that the suit now before us is a malicious prosecution suit and not a defamation suit. A malicious prosecution action is one to recover damages caused by a judicial proceeding instituted with malice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Threlkeld v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...Federal district court, recognizes a cause of action for malicious prosecution of a civil proceeding. Ryerson v. American Surety Co. of New York, 213 Tenn. 182, 373 S.W.2d 436, 437 (1963); Priest v. Union Agency, 174 Tenn. 304, 125 S.W.2d 142, 144 (1939). The elements of this tort ‘are that......
-
Pagliara v. Moses
...claim is that a "prior suit or judicial proceeding" be instituted against the plaintiff. See id. ; Ryerson v. Am. Sur. Co. of New York , 213 Tenn. 182, 373 S.W.2d 436, 437 (1963) ("An action for malicious prosecution, by its very nature, must be brought with reference to some other judicial......
-
Massingille v. Vandagriff
...party may recover damages which "proximately result to plaintiff, his person, property, or reputation." Ryerson v. American Surety Company of New York, 373 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Tenn. 1963); Pullen v. Trexton Inc., 845, S.W.2d 777, 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). In addition, damages may be granted f......
-
Kauffman v. A. H. Robins Co.
...on the defendant's part, and (3) without probable cause. See Pharis v. Lambert (1853) 33 Tenn. 228; Ryerson v. American Surety Company of New York (1963) 213 Tenn. 182, 373 S.W.2d 436. While the action for malicious prosecution originally arose only from criminal proceedings, it is now gene......