White v. Apsley Rubber Co.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1902 |
| Citation | 181 Mass. 339,63 N.E. 885 |
| Parties | WHITE v. APSLEY RUBBER CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Chas. F. Choate, Jr., for plaintiff.
Jas. T. Joslin and Gilbert A. A. Pevey, for defendant.
It is conceded that criminal proceedings were begun against the plaintiff by a sworn complaint, made to a trial justice, charging that the plaintiff had willfully and maliciously injured the personal property of the defendant, and that a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest was issued upon the complaint, and placed in the hands of a police officer, who then went to the house where the plaintiff was. The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff was arrested upon this warrant at the house, and kept under arrest for some minutes, during which he went with the officer to the defendant's office, and then returned with him to the house, and that he was not released from the arrest until he had abandoned a claim to the right to occupy the house, and had left it, finally taking away with himself his wife and such goods of his own as were in the house when he was arrested. The evidence also tended to show that defendant caused the making of the complaint and the arrest, and made use of the arrest to compel the plaintiff, against his will, to abandon a claim to the right to occupy the house, and to compel him actually to withdraw from its occupation. The warrant has never been returned, and since it was issued there has been no judicial action upon the complaint. The fact that the prosecution has not been terminated bars any recovery upon the counts for malicious prosecution. Cardival v. Smith, 109 Mass. 158, 12 Am. Rep. 682; Wood v. Graves, 144 Mass. 365, 366, 11 N.E. 567, 59 Am. Rep. 95. But that fact is not a defense to the counts for abuse of process. Wood v. Graves, ubi supra. A misuse of the warrant and the arrest to compel him to quit the house and relinquish his claim to the right to its occupancy would give him a right of action.
Exceptions sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gabriel v. Borowy
...the legitimate purpose of the particular process employed. Wood v. Graves, 144 Mass. 365, 11 N.E. 567,59 Am.Rep. 95;White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 Mass. 339, 63 N.E. 885;Malone v. Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 103 N.E. 637, 49 L.R.A.,N.S., 753, Ann.Cas.1915A, 830; Reardon v. Sadd, 262 Mass. 345,......
-
Cohen v. Hurley
...no doubt that the present case is well on the side of privilege. Compare decisions where abuse has been found, White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 Mass. 339, 341, 63 N.E. 885 (1902); Malone v. Belcher, 216 Mass. 209, 210-212, 103 N.E. 637 (1913); Reardon v. Sadd, 262 Mass. 345, 348, 159 N.E. 75......
-
White v. International Text-Book Co.
... ... prosecutor is such a termination of the case as will ... authorize an action for malicious prosecution. In White ... v. Apsley Rubber Co. , 194 Mass. 97 (80 N.E. 500, 8 L. R ... A. (N. S.) 484), the court said: ... A ... warrant having been issued, he ... ...
-
Ladd v. Polidoro
...knew was groundless and was an abuse of legal process. Wood v. Graves, 144 Mass. 365 [11 N.E. 567 (1887)]. White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 Mass. 339 [63 N.E. 885 (1902)]." Reardon v. Sadd, supra at 348, 159 N.E. 751. The Reardon case involved the attachment and removal of machinery to colle......