Plum

Plum v. Becket

Good Law
120 Cal. App. 507·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 21·7 P.2d 1111
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 1932Docket No. 7964.California1,327 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Knight, J.

Plaintiff brought this action in the city and county of San Francisco to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution, which it is claimed took place in Plumas County, it being charged in the complaint that the defendant S. C. Young as district attorney of said county and the defendant Láveme Becket conspired to and did maliciously prosecute plaintiff and bring about his conviction before a jury in a justice’s court, upon an unfounded misdemeanor charge, to wit: “discharging an employee Avithout paying his wages, with intent to hinder, harass and defraud such employee; in violation of Chapter #202, Statutes 1919”. The American Surety Company of New York, the surety on the district attorney’s official bond, being joined as a party defendant, appeared separately in the action by filing an answer and thereupon moved the court for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted and judgment entered accordingly, from which plaintiff has taken this appeal.

It has been held uniformly in this state that an action for malicious prosecution may not be maintained unless it appears that the proceedings alleged to have been prosecuted maliciously and without probable cause have been…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.