{
  "id": 11269125,
  "name": "J. Q. A. MICHAEL v. J. L. LEACH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Michael v. Leach",
  "decision_date": "1914-05-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "223",
  "last_page": "225",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "166 N.C. 223"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "143 N. C., 529",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 237,
    "char_count": 4257,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "sha256": "05213c4ba66116e2d92896bb741313f1eaf0d54de6a616bf841fb734f4eb9b81",
    "simhash": "1:35aff3b098e2d0bb",
    "word_count": 716
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:48.430184+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. Q. A. MICHAEL v. J. L. LEACH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nWe have examined the several exceptions relating to the evidence, and find them to be without merit.\nThe motion to nonsuit was properly overruled. It is admitted that the defendant procured a warrant in the county of Catawba, charging the plaintiff with feloniously embezzling $31, and that said cause was removed to McDowell County and tried, and that the plaintiff was acquitted.\nThere is sufficient evidence of a want of probable cause as well as of malice to warrant the judge in refusing defendant\u2019s prayers to direct the jury to answer the second and third issues No.\nWe have examined the charge carefully and find it free from error. It is a full, accurate and fair presentation of the case to the jury.\nThe defend\u00e1nt excepts to this part of this judgment: \u201cIt further appearing that lack of probable cause and malice of defendant were alleged in tbe complaint, and tbat said wrongs resulted in injury to tbe plaintiff\u2019s character, and tbe jury having answered tbe foregoing issues as shown herein: It is further adjudged that execution issue against the property of the defendant, as provided by law, and, if. returned unsatisfied in whole or in part, then, upon motion of plaintiff, execution against the person of the defendant may be issued as provided by law in such cases.\u201d\nThe ancillary proceeding of arrest and bail, as well as final execution against the person, is allowed under Eevisal, 727, where, as in this case, \u201cthe action is for an injury to person or character.\u201d\nSection 625 of Eevisal awards an execution against the person after execution against property has been returned unsatisfied in whole or in part.\nBut no execution shall issue against the person of a judgment debtor unless an order of arrest has been duly served; \u201cor unless the complaint contains a statement of facts showing one or more of the causes of arrest required by law, whether such statement of facts be necessary to the cause of action or not.\u201d Ledford v. Emerson, 143 N. C., 529.\nThe complaint in this ca^e sets out all the necessary facts constituting a cause of action for injury to person and character. The proper findings to establish such cause of action have been-made by the jury.\nThe plaintiff, under such allegations and findings, will be entitled to an execution against the person without incorporating it in the judgment, for the statute awards such relief where the execution against property fails to discharge the judgment.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. C. Lisenbae, Pless & Winborne for the plaintiff.",
      "C. L. Whitener, W. A. Self for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. Q. A. MICHAEL v. J. L. LEACH.\n(Filed 13 May, 1914.)\n1, Malicious Prosecution \u2014 Trials\u2014Evidence\u2014Nonsuit.\nIn an action for damages for malicious prosecution, where it is admitted that the defendant procured a warrant for the arrest of the plaintiff upon the charge of embezzlement, that the plaintiff was acquitted, and there was evidence of the want of probable cause, as well as malice on the part of the defendant in thus acting, a judgment as of nonsuit upon the evidence will be denied.\n2. Malicious Prosecution \u2014 Execution Against Person \u2014 Trials\u2014Non- \u25a0 suit.\nWhere an action for damages for malicious prosecution alleges \u201can injury to the person or character\u201d of the plaintiff, and upon the evidence the jury have answered the issues in the plaintiff\u2019s favor, a judgment is not held for error that execution issue against defendant\u2019s property, and if returned unsatisfied in whole or in' part, then, upon motion of plaintiff, execution issue against the person of defendant, for the statute, K\u00e9visal, 727, gives the plaintiff this right of execution against the person of the defendant without incorporating it in the judgment.\nAppeal by defendant from Cline, J., at tbe January Term, 1914, of McDowell CouNty.\nThis is a civil action.\nThese issues were submitted to the jury:\n1. Did the defendant, J. L. Leach, cause the arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff, J. Q. A. Michael, upon the warrant and indictment referred to in pleadings? Answer :\u2022 Yes.\n2. Was the same done without probable cause? Answer: Yes.\n3. Was the same done with malice? Answer:* Yes.\n4. Has the criminal action terminated? Answer: Yes.\n5. What damages, if any, has the plaintiff sustained thereby? Answer: $2,000.\nC. C. Lisenbae, Pless & Winborne for the plaintiff.\nC. L. Whitener, W. A. Self for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0223-02",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 267
}