Puffe v. Frink

5 Citing cases

  1. Hayes v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    34 Wn. 2d 666 (Wash. 1949)   Cited 9 times

    [8] It is the law that, when a party defendant to an action for malicious prosecution shows that a full and complete disclosure of all pertinent facts concerning the matter was presented to the prosecuting attorney and was by him considered sufficient to show probable cause, such a state of facts constitutes a complete defense to an action for malicious prosecution, and the case should not be submitted to the jury. Borg v. Bringhurst, 105 Wn. 521, 178 P. 450; Lester v. Millman, 107 Wn. 300, 181 P. 878; Eberhart v. Murphy, 113 Wn. 449, 194 P. 415; Puffe v. Frink, 155 Wn. 578, 285 P. 430; Carr v. Zellerbach Paper Co., 169 Wn. 493, 14 P.2d 35; Christiansen v. Anderson, 179 Wn. 368, 37 P.2d 889; Brooks v. Bolde, 11 Wn.2d 37, 118 P.2d 193. The same authorities approve the rule that, when the disclosure to the state's attorney was not complete or truthful, an action for malicious prosecution generally states a question to be determined by a jury.

  2. Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug Barge Co.

    13 Wn. 2d 485 (Wash. 1942)   Cited 158 times
    Holding that the jury should have been instructed on defense of property in a case of alleged assault where the defendant argued he was preventing the victim from taking property

    And the same rule prevails where such disclosure was made to a competent practicing attorney, and the criminal prosecution was instituted upon his advice. Simmons v. Gardner, supra; Anderson v. Seattle Lighting Co., supra; Hightower v. Union Savings Trust Co., supra; Main v. Healy, 100 Wn. 253, 170 P. 570; Borg v. Bringhurst, 105 Wn. 521, 178 P. 450; Bruce v. Elmergreen, 106 Wn. 359, 180 P. 135; Lester v. Millman, 107 Wn. 300, 181 P. 878; Puffe v. Frink, 155 Wn. 578, 285 P. 430; Carr v. Zellerbach Paper Co., 169 Wn. 493, 14 P.2d 35; Huf v. Hague, supra; Christiansen v. Anderson, supra; Brooks v. Bolde, supra; Newell, Malicious Prosecution (1892) 310, 317; 34 Am. Jur. 747, 748, Malicious Prosecution, §§ 71, 72; 38 C.J. 427, 430, 431, Malicious Prosecution, §§ 72, 75, 76. Accord, Eberhart v. Murphy, 113 Wn. 449, 194 P. 415.

  3. Brooks v. Bolde

    118 P.2d 193 (Wash. 1941)   Cited 5 times

    (Italics ours.) See, also, Lester v. Millman, 107 Wn. 300, 181 P. 878; Puffe v. Frink, 155 Wn. 578, 285 P. 430; Carr v. Zellerbach Paper Co., 169 Wn. 493, 14 P.2d 35. [4] A study of the evidence convinces us that appellant's prima facie case was overcome, and that respondent had probable cause to believe that appellant was guilty of the crime charged.

  4. Christiansen v. Anderson

    37 P.2d 889 (Wash. 1934)   Cited 5 times

    Eberhart v. Murphy, 113 Wn. 449, 194 P. 415. Puffe v. Frink, 155 Wn. 578, 285 P. 430; Carr v. Zellerbach Paper Co., 169 Wn. 493, 14 P.2d 35; Huf v. Hague, 171 Wn. 302, 17 P.2d 844. To the same effect are the following cases decided by this court: Simmons v. Gardner, 46 Wn. 282, 89 P. 887, L.R.A. 1915D, 16; Fellows v. Beers, 63 Wn. 678, 116 P. 262; Anderson v. Seattle Lighting Co., 71 Wn. 155, 127 P. 1108; Saunders v. First National Bank of Kelso, 85 Wn. 125, 147 P. 894; Hightower v. Union Savings Trust Co., 88 Wn. 179, 152 P. 1015, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 489.

  5. Carr v. Zellerbach Paper Co.

    14 P.2d 35 (Wash. 1932)   Cited 7 times

    "When he has disclosed truthfully and freely the information of which he is possessed he has performed his entire duty, and he does not then become a guarantor that the testimony will be available at the time necessary for its production. . . . Where the record discloses, as it does in this case, that the prosecuting witness fully and truthfully communicated all the facts and circumstances then within his knowledge or information, then there exists probable cause, as a matter of law, and there is no question to be submitted to the jury." The cases of Eberhart v. Murphy, 113 Wn. 449, 194 P. 415, and Puffe v. Frink, 155 Wn. 578, 285 P. 430, are to the same effect. In the case at bar, it clearly appears from uncontradicted testimony that Mr. Hempstead, at the invitation of the prosecuting attorney for Spokane county, placed before the prosecutor's deputy the matter of the issuance and delivery by respondent Marie Carr of the checks hereinabove referred to and the non-payment thereof by the drawee bank; that the deputy prosecutor then took charge of the matter and prepared the complaint upon which Mrs. Carr was arrested; and that Mr. Hempstead signed and swore to the same at the suggestion of the prosecutor.