Plum v. Becket

California Court of Appeal Feb 8, 1932 No. Docket No. 7964.Published

Before: Knight

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An action for malicious prosecution cannot be maintained where the underlying criminal proceedings resulted in a final conviction, as such a judgment is conclusive evidence of probable cause and precludes a collateral attack based on intrinsic fraud.

Issues

Whether a malicious prosecution action can be maintained when the underlying criminal conviction has not been terminated in the plaintiff's favor.
Whether a justice of the peace has the power to vacate a conviction on the merits after pronouncing a sentence.
Whether a final conviction can be collaterally attacked in a malicious prosecution action on the grounds of intrinsic fraud.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It has been held uniformly in this state that an action for malicious prosecution may not be maintained unless it appears that the proceedings alleged to have been prosecuted maliciously and without probable cause have been terminated in favor”

“When such judgment has thus become final it is conclusive upon the question of probable cause for the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of the defendant in the absence of a direct and successful attack thereon based upon extrinsic fraud”

KNIGHT, J.

Plaintiff brought this action in the city and county of San Francisco to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution, which it is claimed took place in Plumas County, it being charged in the complaint that the defendant S. C. Young as district attorney of said county and the defendant Láveme Becket conspired to and

[509]

did maliciously prosecute plaintiff and bring about his conviction before a jury in a justice’s court, upon an unfounded misdemeanor charge, to wit: “discharging an employee Avithout paying his wages, with intent to hinder, harass and defraud such employee; in violation of Chapter #202, Statutes 1919”. The American Surety Company of New York, the surety on the district attorney’s official bond, being joined as a party defendant, appeared separately in the action by filing an answer and thereupon moved the court for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted and judgment entered accordingly, from which plaintiff has taken this appeal.

It has been held uniformly in this state that an action for malicious prosecution may not be maintained unless it appears that the proceedings alleged to have been prosecuted maliciously and without probable cause have been terminated in favor of the party alleged to be injured by them (Roos v.

Harris,

203 Cal. 201 [263 Pac. 225];

Carpenter

Nutter,

127 Cal. 61 [59 Pac. 301];

Monk

Ehret,

192 Cal. 186 [219 Pac. 452];

Fetterly

Gibson,

210 Cal. 282 [291 Pac. 411]; 16 Cal. Jur. 734); and in the present case it does not so appear. On the contrary the affirmative allegations of the complaint show that the jury before which he was tried found him guilty as charged; that thereupon he was “sentenced to serve two months in the county jail . . . ”; and that no appeal from the judgment was ever perfected. In its essential facts, therefore, the case is identical with Boos v.

Plum v. Becket

AI Brief

KNIGHT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief