Teesdale v. Liebschwager

• Citation: 42 S.D. 323,174 N.W. 620
• Decision Date: 08 November 1919
• Docket Number: No. 4573.,4573.
• Parties: TEESDALE v. LIEBSCHWAGER et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota

42 S.D. 323

174 N.W. 620

TEESDALE

v.LIEBSCHWAGER et al.

No. 4573.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Nov. 8, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Davison County; Frank B. Smith, Judge.

Action by George Teesdale against William Liebschwager and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

See, also, 167 N. W. 391.Seth Teesdale and Thomas L. Arnold, both of Aberdeen, for appellant.

W. W. Reams and H. G. Giddings, both of Mitchell, for respondents.

WHITING, J.

This appeal presents but one question: Does an action for damages lie against one who maliciously and without probable cause institutes a civil action, in which action the defendant was not deprived of his liberty or property and was not injured in his business? The trial court held that no action lies.

While it is true that the courts of a number of states sustain the conclusion of the trial court, the majority of the American courts hold to the contrary, and sustain what Cyc. terms the “American rule,” and we are fully convinced that such rule is founded on sound reasons.

It is not the purpose of the law to unduly discourage any one from resorting to the courts for a determination of rights or remedies to which he in good faith believes himself entitled. It is for this that courts are created, and a good-faith resort to them is the right of every person. The only penalty inflicted by statute upon one who, while acting in good faith in bringing an action, yet fails to recover, is that he must pay certain sums denominated “costs.” It is true that a defendant may suffer a heavy financial loss through being sued; but, if the action was brought in good faith, his damages are not the result of a legal injury-the plaintiff was but pursuing a legal right, resulting in damnum absque injuria.

But, while a man has a legal right to, in good faith, resort to the courts for a determination of a claimed legal right or remedy, no person has any right, recognized by the law, to maliciously and without probable cause hale his fellow man into either a criminal or civil court. So to do is unlawful, and entitles the wronged party to damages for the detriment suffered. Sections 1959, 1960, Rev. Code 1919. To hold that statutes, allowing a successful defendant costs, furnish the only indemnity for such defendant, and this whether or no there has been a malicious perversion of legal remedies, places the plaintiff who lawfully uses, and the plaintiff who maliciously perverts the right to...