Court Opinion

ID: 9538718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:40:33.76071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:06.950303
License: Public Domain

*376MR. JUSTICE BOTTOMLY
(specially concurring).
I concur in the result, but not in all that is said in the opinion. In my opinion the pleadings of the defendant in this proceeding sufficiently set forth facts relative to the acts on the part of the plaintiff from which malice may be implied.
The cross-complaint of defendant alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiff at the time of filing the notice of lien well knew that the goods, wares, merchandise, materials and supplies, if in fact furnished by plaintiff, were not furnished at the special instance and request of defendant and cross-complainant C. L. Thompson; that the said notice of lien, insofar as the same relates to defendant and cross-complainant C. L. Thompson, and the leaseholds described therein, was and is wholly erroneous, false and fraudulent.
From the pleadings it appears affirmatively that the plaintiff in disregard of defendant’s rights knowingly, recklessly, erroneously, fraudulently and wrongfully filed a blanket lien upon many legal subdivisions of real property, in which defendant held leasehold interests, all of which would demonstrate a willingness on the part of the plaintiff to cloud and disparage the title of defendant and the will to vex, annoy and harass and injure the defendant.
Where, as here, no justifiable motive is shown in the record, malice is presumed. R. C. M. 1947, sec. 19-103, subd. 18, and sec. 94-2803; 53 G. J. S., Libel & Slander, p. 392, sec. 270, note 50; 3 Restatement, Torts, secs. 624-630, pp. 325-343; Gudger v. Manton, 21 Cal. (2d) 537, 134 Pac. (2d) 217, 221.
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES METCALF and ANGSTMAN, concur in the foregoing specially concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE BOTTOMLY.