Olson v. Haggerty

Citations

• 69 Wash. 48
• 124 P. 145
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 843

Syllabus

<p>Malicious Prosecution—Search Proceedings—Naming Plaintiff. A malicious prosecution may he based upon search proceedings; and Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 2237, 2239, not requiring the proceedings or warrant to designate the person suspected, it is not necessary that the proceedings name the plaintiff' as the suspected party.</p> <p>Same—Designation of Premises. A search warrant describes the plaintiff’s “place of residence” so as to enable her to maintain an action for malicious prosecution, where it mentions the dwelling and premises of another wherein the plaintiff was a “resident, lodger, and inmate,” and where it appears that the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between the plaintiS and the owner of the house, and plaintiff did not maintain a distinct establishment therein.</p> <p>Same—Sufficiency of Warrant—Liability of Instigator. One who institutes search proceedings and directs the sheriff’s search of plaintiff’s effects thereunder may be guilty of malicious prosecution, even if the search warrant was technically insufficient to protect the officer.</p> <p>Same—Liability—Essentials—Abrest ob Seizure of Property. The arrest of the person or the seizure of property is not essential to sustain an action for malicious prosecution in the institution of search proceedings.</p> <p>Same—Damages—Special Damages. The disgrace, humiliation and public suspicion caused by a search warrant to recover stolen goods are sufficient elements of damage to sustain .a substantial recovery for malicious prosecution, without proof of pecuniary loss or special damage.</p>