Schwartz v. Schwartz

California Court of Appeal Mar 11, 1938 No. Civ. 10366Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an action for malicious prosecution cannot be maintained when the underlying proceeding resulted in an adverse judgment, even if the plaintiff was later restored to competency. Furthermore, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a second amended complaint.

Issues

Whether a cause of action for malicious prosecution exists when the underlying insanity proceeding terminated adversely to the plaintiff.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rule is well settled that the institution of a proceeding to declare a person insane cannot give rise to a cause of action in his favor for malicious prosecution where the proceeding terminated adversely to him”

“No ground for the reversal of the judgments has been shown, and the same are accordingly affirmed.”

THE COURT.

An appeal by the plaintiff on the judgment roll from three separate judgments entered in favor of defendants Mollie Schwartz, Phillip Levin, Merwyn L. Hirsehfeld and the Park Sanitarium, a corporation.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleged in substance that the three defendants first named maliciously entered into a conspiracy to cause the plaintiff to be adjudged insane and, by means of false swearing, caused him to be so adjudged and

[304]

committed as an insane person to the state hospital at Agncw, California, where he remained for several months during the year 1932; further, that the defendant Mollie Schwartz, knowing the evidence upon which plaintiff was committed to be false, caused herself to be appointed guardian of his person and estate thereby deprived him of the possession of his property, all to his damage, and that he was unable to procure her discharge as such guardian until the year 1934. Demurrers to the amended complaint were sustained, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was denied and judgments of dismissal were entered.

None of the complaints filed nor the proposed second amended complaint alleged that any of the proceedings terminated in plaintiff’s favor except in so far as appears inferentially from the allegation that he has since been restored to competency.

The present action is essentially one to recover for malicious prosecution; and the assault which plaintiff makes upon the judgments is predicated upon averments of intrinsic fraud in their procurement. The rule is well settled that the institution of a proceeding to declare a person insane cannot give rise to a cause of action in his favor for malicious prosecution where the proceeding terminated adversely to him and he was judicially declared to be of unsound mind, even though he be later restored to competency.

(Fetterley

Gibson,

210 Cal. 282 [291 Pac. 411].) In such cases the gist of the action is the alleged wrongful prosecution, not the alleged conspiracy.

Schwartz v. Schwartz

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief