Runo

Runo v. Williams

Good Law
162 Cal. 444·1912 Cal. LEXIS 558·122 P. 1082
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 29, 1912L.A. No. 2762.California4,175 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lorigan, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for malicious prosecution.

Plaintiff, a building contractor, and defendant, about April 1,1909, made a verbal contract under which the former was to furnish the labor and material and build for the latter three houses and barns, referred to in the testimony as jobs 9,12,14. The contract price for each job—whether $1275 or an excess thereof—is in dispute between the parties, but for present purposes this is immaterial. On July 11, 1909, the building of one of the houses and barns—job 9—had been finished by plaintiff and accepted by defendant, and the other two were well on towards completion. On the day last referred to a dispute arose between plaintiff and defendant, brought about by the latter with reference, among other matters, to the contract price for constructing the houses, in the course of which he charged plaintiff with having "got” him for fifteen hundred dollars with reference to the contracts, though in what respect was not particularly mentioned. Prior to this the relations of the parties had been quite friendly.

On July 14, 1909, defendant swore to a complaint before a justice of the peace charging plaintiff with…

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.