Coble v. Huffines

2 Citing cases

  1. Coble v. Huffines

    45 S.E. 760 (N.C. 1903)   Cited 4 times

    In an action for malicious prosecution a statement of the defendant that he would spend $1,000 to have his revenge is some evidence of malice. A PETITION to rehear this case, reported in 132 N.C. 399. J. A. Barringer and A. L. Brooks for petitioner.

  2. Lindsay v. Woods

    27 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Civ. App. 1930)   Cited 10 times

    t res judicata of such sanity or insanity at a prior or subsequent date to that of such determination; but it is our opinion that subsequent and repeated affidavits, made by the same affiant, against the same person, making the same charge, resulting in arrest and confinement, after such person has been repeatedly acquitted of such charge, is a willful misuse of a judicial process, not justified, and should be considered as tending to show malice and want of probable cause, especially where there is no fact or circumstance to suggest that the mental condition of the person prosecuted had changed from the time of the first adjudication of her sanity by the courts until the last adjudication thereof. This, in effect, is the holding in Shedd v. Patterson, 302 Ill. 355, 134 N.E. 705, 26 A.L.R. 1004; Pierce v. Lyons, 42 S.D. 543, 176 N.W. 521; Severns v. Brainerd, 61 Minn. 265, 63 N.W. 477; Proctor Coal Co. v. Moses (Ky.) 40 S.W. 681; Smith et al. v. Graves, 59 Ind. App. 55, 108 N.E. 168; Coble v. Huffines, 132 N.C. 399, 43 S.E. 909; Schumann v. Tolbert et al., 86 Ga. 25, 12 S.E. 185. In Davenport v. Lynch, 51 N.C. 545, the Supreme Court of North Carolina says: "We think * * * that his Honor might well have left it to the jury to infer malice, and an evil motive throughout, from the want of probable cause — the utter groundlessness for the successive applications by the defendants for the proceedings in lunacy."