Davis v. Wilhelm & Bonnett

Citations

• 76 Pa. Super. 396
• 1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 160

Syllabus

<p>Malicious ‘prosecution — Want of probable cause — Burden of proof —Sufficiency of evidence — Municipal court-~ — Trial ivithout jury— Practice.</p> <p>In an action for malicious prosecution, tried by the municipal court without a jury, it is the duty of the court to find the facts and then declare the law properly applicable to the facts so found.</p> <p>In an action for malicious prosecution, proof that a charge of larceny was brought by the defendant against the plaintiff, and the subsequent discharge of the plaintiff by the magistrate, constitutes a prima facie ease, and the burden is upon the defendant to produce evidence of the existence of probable-cause.</p> <p>In such an action, the offer of the record before the magistrate would have been sufficient to shift the burden of proof, as to the existence of probable cause, or the want of it, from the plaintiff to the defendant.</p> <p>An opinion filed by the court below, indicating that, notwithstanding any evidence offered in the case, the burden of proof as to probable cause had never shifted, constitutes reversible error and the judgment thereon will be reversed.</p> <p>Actions — Joint tort-feasors — Practice, O. P.</p> <p>To entitle the plaintiff to a verdict against two defendants, as joint tort-feasors, it must appear that tbey acted in concert in committing the tort complained of. If no concert of action is shown, and therefore no joint tort, and the case is one of separate’ tort upon the part of one or of several defendants, the action is not sustained, and there should be no verdict against any one. In a suit for a joint tort, there should be no recovery, upon proof of one or more separate torts. When a joint tort is charged, a joint tort must be proved in order to sustain the action.</p>