Case ID: pa-super_68/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kephart, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DeGeyter v. Keller, Appellant.
    
      Malicious prosecution — Malicious use of civil process — Wrongful entry of judgment in ejectment — Evidence.
    A judgment on a verdict for plaintiff in an action for malicious use of civil process will be sustained, where it appears that the plaintiff had been wrongfully ejected from premises under a judgment entered on a warrant of attorney that had been exhausted by a prior entry of judgment in ejectment for the same premises, and it also appears that there had been personal quarrels between the defendant and the wife of the plaintiff.
    Argued Oct. 3,1917.
    Appeal, No. 88, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 1333, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Gustave J. DeGeyter v. Marian Keller.
    December 13, 1917:
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass for malicious use of civil process. Before McMichael, P. J.
    At the trial it appeared that plaintiff had been ejected from premises under a judgment entered on a warrant of attorney which had been exhausted by a prior entry of judgment in ejectment for the same premises. There was also evidence of personal quarrels between defendant and plaintiff’s wife.
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $100. Defendant appealed..
    
      Errors assigned were in admitting evidence as to quarrels between plaintiff’s wife and defendant, and in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
    
      Albert E. Peterson, for appellant,
    cited: Graver v. Fehr, 18 W. N. C. 311.
    Ho printed brief for appellee.
   Opinion by

Kephart, J.,

This is an action for malicious use of a civil process. In all such actions it is necessary to show that the person has acted maliciously, without reasonable or probable cause: Mayer v. Walter, 64 Pa. 283. The evidence shows that the plaintiff was wrongfully ejected from the premises by a writ issuing on a judgment that had no legal foundation. It was entered on a warrant of attorney that had been exhausted by a prior entry of a judgment in ejectment for the same premises. There is sufficient testimony from which the jury might find that the defendant acted maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause. The testimony complained of was proper for the consideration of the jury and the assignments of error to the charge of the court are without merit!

The judgment is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.