« AnteriorContinuar »
Godley v. Crandall & Godley Co.
Insurance Co., Ætna L., Moore v.
Goins v. State ...
(Ohio St.) 241
Bankers' Mut. Casualty,
cial Acci. Co... (C. C. A.) 312 Dirigo Mut. F., Bouchard
Teutonia F., Petello v.
Hattiesburg Traction Co., Mis-
alty Ins. Co. (Minn.) 1199
Herold v. Parish Bd, of School
Highland Hospital, Cook v.... (N. C.)
Knafil v. Knoxville Bkg. & T. Co.
Loganville Bkg. Co. v. Forrester
Morrisey v. Williams (W. Va.)
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Gaddie
Mott Iron Works y. Arnold .. (R. I.) 1028
(Ky.) 705 Murphy, Merchant's Legal Stamp
(N. J. Err. & App.) 1190 Northrup Nat. Bank, Acme Coal
Burtless ... (Neb.) 1205 Northwestern Jobber's Credit Bu-
son Gas Co. ... (Mass.) 1080 Northwestern Marble & Tile Co.
v. Williams ... (Minn.) 1077
McIntyre Co., Scott v. (Kan.) 139
(Ark.) 1126 Old Dominion Co., Hyams v. (Me.) 1128
(Fla.) 442 Omaha Maternity & General
Massachusetts Bonding & Ins.
Parish Bd. of School Directors,
Matson v. Michael
(Kan.) 1 Park City, Knoxville v. (Tenn.) 1103
Merchant's Legal Stamp Co. v.
Paylor v. United States . (App. D. C.) 682
(Ala.) 1167 Pierce, Calkins v.
Portland, Reiff v.
(Or.) 772 Railway, Light & Power Co.,
Columbia & N. R., Salmi
(Or.) 834 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Drey.
(Miss.) 843 Scott v. McIntyre Co. (Kan.) 139
L. Assur. Soc. V. (N. Y.) 1052 Sewerage and Water Board,
(Wash.) 503 Shellaberger, Boutell v. (Mo.) 847
Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L.
v. Texas (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 677
Trinity & B. V., v. Black-
Southern R. Co., Hutto v. .. (S. C.) 962
Starling v. Selma Cotton Mills
United Drug Co., Conley v. (Mass.) 830
(N. C.) 850 United Mine Workers of Amer-
(Jinn.) 201 United States Mortg. & T. Co.,
Sullivan, State Bar Commission
v. Fidelity Bkg. & T. Co.
Tax Lien Co. v. Schultze .... (N. Y.) 1115 Willis, Union Acci. Co. v. ....
.. (Okla.) 358
Winter v. American Radiator
(Ala.) 1167 Yawger v. American Surety Co.
KANSAS SUPREME COURT. cient to warrant a reasonably prudent man
in believing another guilty of a crime is 0. E. MATSON, Appt.,
one of law, and it is substantial error to
submit it to the jury. An instruction that, GRACE MICHAEL.
in order for probable cause for an arrest
to exist, the facts must be such as would (81 Kan. 360, 105 Pac. 537.)
justify an ordinarily prudent person in en
tertaining a belief in another's guilt, and Trial instruction malicious prose that whether such facts had come to the
cution probable cause question knowledge of the defendant at the time he of law.
caused the arrest of the plaintiff is a ques1. In an action for malicious prosecution, tion for the jury to determine, is likely to the question of what information is suffi- be understood by the jury to mean that
they are to decide not only what informaHeadnotes by MASON, J.
tion the defendant had, but whether it was Note. – Malicious prosecution: is the | III.-continued.
question of probable cause for the c. When facts are undisputed. court or jury.
1. In general, 58.
2. Directed verdict, nonsuit, etc., I. Scope, 2. II. Introduction.
d. Defining probable cause to the a. Nature of probable cause,
jury, 67. b. ('onspectus, 4.
e. Effect of general rule upon pleadIII. General rule.
ing, 70. a. Generally, 5.
View of probable cause on appeal,
g. When error of submitting prob
able cause to jury is no ground 12.
for reversal, 71. b. When facts are disputed.
IV. General rule regretted, disapproved, or 1. Generally, 12.
b. Knowledge of defendant, 79.
c. Belief of defendant, 79.
(1) Generally, 48. VI. Advice of counsel.
a. In general, 85.
b. Where there is a dispute. complicated, 50.
1. -in general, 87. (3) Instructions
2. -as to disclosure of facts, based upon par
87. tial or imper
3. -as to good faith of defendfect presenta
ant, 88. tion of facts, VII. Conclusion, 89.
50. (4) Examples of in- As to conclusiveness of judgment ren
structions. dered in criminal action to show probable aa.-held prop- cause, see note in 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 663.
As to acquittal or discharge as evidence bb.-held im- of want of probable cause, see note in 64