Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0168-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHITTENDEN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 116
    EDWARD DAVIS v. STRAND THEATRE CO. et al.
    Ohio Court of Appeals, Lucas County
    No. 1247.
    Jan. 15, 1923
    MALICIOUS PROSECUTION — (1) Law defined — (2) Errors appearing not prejudicial.
    This opinion has not been published elsewhere.
    Error to Lucas County Common Pleas
    Attorneys — Thad S. Powell and Silas E. Hurin, for plaintiff; Harris & Kaplan, for defendant.
   CHITTENDEN, J.

Epitomized Opinion

On the trial of this case below the court directed a verdict in favor of the Strand Co., and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendant chamas. Held by the instant court:

1. To sustain an action for malicious prosecution it must affirmatively appear as a part of the case of the person demanding damages that the party sought to be charged was the proximate and efficient cause of maliciously putting the law in motion, or of tortuously. continuing the prosecution.

2. We find that there was no evidence tending to show that either of the defendants was the cause of the arrest and prosecution of plaintiff, and the court should have directed a verdict in favor of both of them. The evidence required the verdict and any errors appearing in the trial were unprejudicial. Judgment of Common Pleas affirmed.