Case Name: John D. Ferguson, Resp't, v. Thomas C. Arnow, Imp'ld, Appl't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-12-12
Citations: 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 852
Docket Number: 
Parties: John D. Ferguson, Resp't, v. Thomas C. Arnow, Imp'ld, Appl't.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 50
Pages: 852–854

Head Matter:
John D. Ferguson, Resp't, v. Thomas C. Arnow, Imp'ld, Appl't.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 12, 1892.)
Malicious prosecution—Probable cause.
Plaintiff was employed by highway commissioners to tear down a fence and part of a building of defendant's father which were claimed to encroach on the highway. Defendant brought action for trespass and had plaintiff arrested, but the complaint was dismissed. It appeared that defendant had testified in a former action that he had been told that the premises encroached, hut he would not remove the fence until the people on the other side removed theirs. In an action for malicious prosecution, Held, that a verdict for plaintiff would not be disturbed, as even if the court should have taken from the jury the questions of malice and probable cause, the result would have been the same.
(Barnard, P. J., dissents).
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered uponverdict of a jury.
Action for malicious prosecution.
The defendants as legatees under the last will and testament of their father were the owners of certain lands, situate in the village of Westchester, Westchester Co., N. Y. The premises had been ■enclosed and occupied by them and their ancestors for the period ■of fifty years. In March, 1889, the commissioners of highways of the town claimed for the first time that a portion of the lands so •owned and occupied were a part of the public highway, and notice was served to remove the fences and a veranda from a dwelling house in order that the public take possession of the land for street purposes.
The defendants brought an action to restrain the commissioners in the name of the executors of their father’s estate. Upon the trial of that action his Honor Judge Dykman dismissed the complaint upon the ground that the executors had no such interest in the real estate as would permit them to sustain such an action and the trial o£ the cause did not involve the merits.
Immediately after the conclusion of that trial, the plaintiff, for the commissioners, without further notice entered upon the premises and proceeded to tear down the fences and a portion of defendants’ house, cutting off the posts, tearing the siding from the building.
Defendants then brought an action against this plaintiff for damages in trespass and had plaintiff arrested. In the suit, upon the trial of that action before Mr. Justice Barnard and a jury, a verdict was found for the defendant. No judgment was. entered upon that verdict until after the commencement of this action.
The plaintiff then brought this action which was tried before Mr. Justice Bartlett and a jury at Westchester circuit, December 9, 1891, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $150.
Seward Baker {J.. W. Bartram, of counsel), for app’lt;
Wm. G. Reddy, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
We find no errors in this case prejudicial to the defendant. The verdict cannot be considered excessive.
If it be that the court should have taken from the jury the questions of motive and want of probable cause, the defendant has not been thereby injured, for had the court itself passed upon those questions the result would have been the same, as we think the jury decided them correctly.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Dykman, J., concurs.