Welch v. Boston & Providence Railroad Corp.

• Citation: 14 R.I. 609
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 31 December 1884
• Parties: JOHN WELCH v. BOSTON & PROVIDENCE RAILROAD CORPORATION.

14 R.I. 609

JOHN WELCH v. BOSTON & PROVIDENCE RAILROAD CORPORATION.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

December 31, 1884

In an action for malicious prosecution brought by A. against B.:

Held, that a judicial finding in the former action in favor of B. and against A. by the court of original jurisdiction is conclusive of probable cause, when such finding is not procured by unfair means, even if such finding is reversed on appeal.

TRESPASS ON THE CASE for malicious prosecution. On demurrer to the declaration.

Page & Owen and Amasa M. Eaton, for plaintiff.

Arnold Green, for defendant.

CARPENTER J.

This is case for malicious prosecution founded on three actions brought by the Boston & Providence Railroad Corporation against John Welch, in the Justice Court of the city of Providence. The declaration sets out these actions, and in each of them states that " upon trial of said action" the Justice Court gave judgment in favor of the railroad corporation and against Welch. As to two of these actions, the declaration does not charge that the judgment of the Justice Court has ever been reversed. As to the third the declaration charges a reversal on appeal. The railroad corporation has demurred to the declaration, and argues that the conviction of Welch in the court of first instance is conclusive evidence of probable cause for the actions brought against him. We think the demurrer must be sustained.

It was early decided in Reynolds v. Kennedy, 1 Wils. 232 that the finding against the plaintiff by the tribunal before which the complaint was made is conclusive evidence that there was probable cause for the complaint, even although that finding was afterwards reversed on appeal. This case is cited with apparent approval by Lord Mansfield and Lord Loughborough in Johnstone v. Sutton, 1 Term Rep 510. The same doctrine has been applied in numerous cases in this country. Whitney v. Peckham, 15 Mass. 243; Cloon v. Gerry, 13 Gray, 201; Palmer v. Avery 41 Barb. S.C. 290; Spring v. Besore, 12 B. Mon. 551; Griffis v. Sellars, 4 Dev. & Batt. 176.

In Burt v. Place, 4 Wend. 591, the court carefully examine and expound the doctrine of Reynolds v Kennedy, and sustain the declaration on the clear ground that it goes beyond the declaration in that case, inasmuch as it alleges that the defendant, well knowing that the plaintiff had a good defence, prevented the plaintiff from procuring the necessary evidence to make out that defence by causing him to be detained a prisoner until the judgments were obtained, and that the imprisonment was for the purpose of preventing a defence to the actions. In ...