Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

68 Vt. 247

Hatjie v. Hare

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided January 15, 1896

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1896-01-15

Action on the case for malicious prosecution. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the September term, 1896, Chittenden county, Taft, J., presiding. At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1921

2 state decisions

Relies on Barron v. Mason · Driggs v. Burton · Carleton v. Taylor

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1896-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THOMPSON, J.

¶1This is an action on the case for malicious prosecution. To maintain it, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to allege and prove as an independent fact, malice on the part of the defendant in bringing his action against the plaintiff. Dishonesty and bad faith on the part of the defendant must be established. Therefore the question whether there was malice in the mind of the defendant in the institution of his suit, was a distinct issue on trial, to be proven by the plaintiff. Barron v. Mason, 31 Vt. 189; Driggs v. Burton, 44 Vt. 124; Carleton v. Taylor, 50 Vt. 220. The plaintiff’s evidence did not tend to prove such malice, and the county court, therefore, did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/68/vt/247 · .json · Public domain