Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 Colo. 67

Warner v. Thuringer

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided November 5, 1917

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1917-11-05

<p>1. Malicious Peosecution — Malice. In a case of malicious prosecution, malice is an essential element of the cause of action, and a finding of the jury that defendants were not actuated by-malice is decisive of the case.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1937

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1917-11-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Teller

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The defendant in error recovered a judgment of one dollar against each of the defendants in an action for malicious prosecution. The parties will be designated herein as they were in the trial court.

¶3The action was begun in a justice court and was there tried to a jury which disagreed. It was then tried to the court on the evidence in the former trial and judgment rendered for the defendants. The case, having been appealed to the county court, was there tried to a jury, a verdict in favor of one of the defendants, Elizabeth Freitag, was directed and returned, and the jury disagreed as to the other defendants. On a second trial the jury returned a verdict against the defendants, — but finding that neither was guilty of fraud, malice or wilful deceit. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and the cause is now here for review.

¶4This litigation grew out of a prosecution of the plaintiff for violating the election laws while acting as a judge of election.

¶5Since malice is an essential element of the cause of action, the finding by the jury that neither defendant was actuated by malice is decisive of the case.

¶6The judgment is accordingly reversed with directions to dismiss the case.

¶7Mr. Justice Hill and Mr. Justice Scott concur.

/69/colo/67 · .json · Public domain