Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Cal. 257

Bliss v. Wyman

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1857

California Supreme Court · decided 1857-07-01

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Bliss, against the defendants, for damages sustained by reason of a malicious prosecution. The chief ground of the defence, was that the defendants had acted under the advice of counsel, in preferring a charge of grand larceny, for stealing cattle, against the plaintiff, and causing him to be indicted therefor.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1914

4 state decisions

201857186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Terry, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

¶2This is an appeal from a judgment in an action for malicious prosecution. There are no errors of law assigned. The appellants’ argument is addressed to the facts of the case, and these facts abundantly sustain the verdict.

¶3Not only is it shown that there was no reasonable or probable cause for the prosecution instituted by defendants, but that defendants, having every reason to know the innocence of plaintiff, and his uniform good character, and after expressing themselves satisfied on this point, instituted from express malice.

¶4In order that a party may avail himself of the defence of advice of counsel, he must show that such advice was given upon *258a full and fair statement of the facts within his knowledge. This does not appear to have been done in this case.

¶5The appeal is without merit, and the judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent damages and costs.

/7/cal/257 · .json · Public domain