Watkins v. Price Mercantile Co.
Watkins v. Price Mercantile Company
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Bell, J.
1. In a suit for malicious use of legal process, where the answer admitted an allegation of the petition that the process was sued out maliciously and without probable cause, but the answer was later amended by striking the admission and inserting in lieu thereof a denial of the allegation, the admission, though introduced as evidence for the plaintiff, was not conclusive, and could be explained or disproved by the defendant. Alabama Midland Railway Co. v. Guilford, 114 Ga. 627 ( 40 S. E. 794 ); Mims v. Jones, 135 Ga. 541, 544 ( 69 S. E. 824 ) ; McConnell v. Gregory, 146 Ga. 475 ( 91 S. E. 550 ).
*273 Decided May 11, 1932. Hattie B. Bell, Grady Gillon, for plaintiff in error. James L. Wimberly, West & West, contra.
2. The evidence demanded the inference that the defendant acted upon probable cause in suing out and prosecuting the search warrant, and the trial court therefore properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant in the suit for damages. Compare Sirmans v. Peterson, 42 Ga. App. 707 ( 157 S. E. 341 ).
3. The superior court did not err in refusing to sanction the plaintiff’s petition for the writ of certiorari.
Judgment affirmed.
Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.