{ "id": 8624218, "name": "ESTHER G. WINGATE v. J. O. CAUSEY", "name_abbreviation": "Wingate v. Causey", "decision_date": "1928-09-26", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "71", "last_page": "72", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "196 N.C. 71" } ], "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": "50 S. E., 571", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11268984 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0174-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S. E., 577", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 N. C., 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273308 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/167/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S. E., 213", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 673", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631400 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0673-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S. E., 434", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 N. C., 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603857 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/194/0273-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 237, "char_count": 3270, "ocr_confidence": 0.474, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3269393657271986e-07, "percentile": 0.6281234929140657 }, "sha256": "fcec82f865ede2d509a5241c2d519d67a19eb46f79fcfe97118f321fc4fd93e6", "simhash": "1:3a4ca309d81917dc", "word_count": 566 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ESTHER G. WINGATE v. J. O. CAUSEY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.,\nafter stating the case: We think the evidence offered in defense of plaintiff\u2019s claim was sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and that the court erred in rendering judgment on the defendant\u2019s admission that he issued the check held by plaintiff. The credibility of such evidence, however, is for the jury to determine. Evans v. Cowan, 194 N. C., 273, 139 S. E., 434.\nBut as it is not alleged that the criminal prosecution, which forms the basis of defendant\u2019s claim for damages for malicious prosecution, terminated in favor of the defendant, there was no error in sustaining the demurrer to the counterclaim. Winkler v. Blowing Rock Lines, 195 N. C., 673, 143 S. E., 213; Carpenter v. Hanes, 167 N. C., 551, 83 S. E., 577. Three things must be alleged and proved in an action for malicious prosecution: (1) malice, (2) want of probable cause, and (3) termination of proceeding upon which the action is based. R. R. v. Hardware Co., 138 N. C., 174, 50 S. E., 571.\nError.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "'No counsel appearing for plaintiff.", ". S. J. Everett for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ESTHER G. WINGATE v. J. O. CAUSEY.\n(Filed 26 September, 1928.)\n1. Bills and Notes \u2014 Actions \u2014 Defenses \u2014 Evidence Sufficient to go to Jury.\nEvidence by tbe payee, in an action against bim to recover upon a postdated check \u201cfor value received\u201d that it was given in payment for a pair of mules, and that the check was to be cashed only in the event that the parties agreed that the mules were to be sold for cash, but upon certain terms of credit if sold on credit, and that the latter was agreed upon, should be submitted to the jury, and a judgment rendered on the admission of the defendant that he executed the check is erroneous.\n2. Malicious Prosecution \u2014 Termination of Prosecution.\nWhere in the plaintiff\u2019s action to recover upon a check given by the defendant, and protested at the bank upon which it was drawn, the defendant sets up a counterclaim upon the ground that the plaintiff wrongfully and maliciously had him arrested, etc., it is necessary for the defendant to show the termination of the proceeding in his favor, as well as malice and want of probable cause.\nAppeal by defendant from Grady, J., a,t March Term, 1928, of Pitt.\nCivil action to recover on a $400 check given to plaintiff by defendant, 3 February, 1922, \u201cfor value received,\u201d which went to protest.\nIn defense it was alleged, and there was .evidence tending to show, that the cheek in question, which was post dated, represented the purchase price of a, team- of mules or horses, but was not to be used unless defendant sold said team for cash; otherwise, if sold on time, the check was; to be taken up with good paper, which defendant says was offered, and, while first refused, was later reduced to judgment and assigned to plaintiff\u2019s principal by agreement, in settlement of said check.\nDefendant also set up a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, in that, it is alleged, plaintiff wrongfully and maliciously had him arrested and arraigned before the Superior Court of Wilson County for uttering a worthless cheek.\nFrom a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the counterclaim, and holding that the evidence offered in defense of plaintiff\u2019s claim was not sufficient to defeat a recovery, defendant appeals, assigning errors.\n'No counsel appearing for plaintiff.\n. S. J. Everett for defendant." }, "file_name": "0071-01", "first_page_order": 151, "last_page_order": 152 }