Wright v. Hagerman
| Citation | 42 S.W. 917 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. HAGERMAN. |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1897 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
Appeal from circuit court, Daviess county.
"Not to be officially reported."
Action by O. E. Hagerman against Peyton Wright for malicious prosecution. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Sweeney Ellis & Sweeney, for appellant.
Hill & Hill, for appellee.
DU RELLE, J.
The appellee recovered a verdict and judgment against appellant for $4,500, in a suit for damages, alleging that appellant maliciously and without probable cause made affidavit before a justice of the peace, charging appellee with forgery committed by deceit and fraud, in procuring appellant to sign a paper in blank, and falsely and unlawfully inserting over the signature an obligation to pay the Lytle Safe & Lock Company the sum of $50, with intent to defraud appellant that he procured a warrant for the arrest of appellee, who was arrested by the sheriff, and held under bond for his appearance in the circuit court; that the grand jury refused to indict, and the prosecution was dismissed for want of proof. The petition further alleges that on account of the prosecution, which was malicious and without cause, appellee was brought into public scandal and disgrace, and suffered mentally, and his good name and fame were greatly damaged. The answer traversed the material allegations of the petition, and stated that the appellant was a negro illiterate, unable to read writing at all, and only able to write his name mechanically; that the appellee proposed to sell him a fire and burglar proof safe, representing that the safe was as good as one owned by one Meisenheimer; that it was to be sent to appellant on approval, and that appellee obtained appellant's signature to what was represented to be a blank application for the purchase of the safe, which appellant signed with the distinct agreement that it was simply an application for the safe to be shipped, that he might have an opportunity to inspect it before the contract of sale was to be finally consummated; that, without appellant's knowledge or consent, appellee inserted the written part of the contract, which did not truly express the contract actually made; that upon inspection appellant found the safe not to be as good as represented, and he accordingly declined to take it. He further stated that when sued on the contract he sought the advice of counsel, stated all the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Randol v. Kline's, Inc.
...52 Ill. 347; Loewenthal v. Streng, 90 Ill. 74; Schaeffer v. Arnaelsteen (Cal.), 202 Pac. 946; Koch v. Pond, 19 Ohio. App. 1; Wright v. Hagerman (Ky.), 42 S.W. 917; Davis v. McMillan (Mich), 105 N.W. 862; Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Wainscott, 91 Okla. 66, 216 Pac. 141; Vanderlinden v. Oster, 3......
-
H.S. Leyman Co. v. Short
...... increased injury to his reputation and additional. humiliation." 18 R.C.L. p. 74, § 56. . . . Wright v. Hagerman, 42 S.W. 917, 19 Ky. Law Rep. 1032, was reversed because the verdict was excessive. No. other question was presented in that case. . ......
-
H.S. Leyman Company v. Short
...circumstance which will show an increased injury to his reputation and additional humiliation." 18 R.C.L., p. 74, sec. 56. Wright v. Haverman, 42 S.W. 917, was reversed because the verdict was excessive. No other question was presented in that In view of the fact that the plaintiff's actual......
- Braswell v. Rehkoff