Sandoz v. Veazie

Citations

• 106 La. 202

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. “ Probable cause ” does not depend upon the actual state of the case, in point of fact, but upon the honest and reasonable belief of the party prosecuting.</p> <p>2. The question of “ probable cause,” as presented in an action for damages for alleged malicious prosecution, is a mixed one of fact and law, with which a jury, composed of men untrained in knowledge of law, is not unlikely to confuse the question of the guilt or innocence of the person, who, having been acquitted of the charge brought against him, seeks to recover damages for his prosecution.</p> <p>3. “ Where a party has communicated to his counsel all the facts bearing on the case of which he has knowledge, or could have ascertained by reasonable diligence and inquiry, and has acted upon the advice received, honestly and in good faith, the absence of malice is established, the want of probab’e cause is negatived, and the action for malicious prosecution will not lie.” And, a fortiori is this the case where, the counsel consulted is the public prosecutor.</p> <p>4. Actions of this sort have never been favored; a clear case must be made out of a perversion of the forms of justice to the satisfaction of private malice and the wilful oppression of the innocent, in order to sustain them.</p> <p>5. In this case, the evidence shows that the defendant, who is sued for damages for malicious prosecution, acted without malice and with probable cause, and upon the advice of the public prosecutor, before whom he had fairly laid the facts within his knowledge, and the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff are accordingly reversed.</p>