{ "id": 8628105, "name": "R. O. ABERNETHY v. W. W. BURNS et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Abernethy v. Burns", "decision_date": "1936-11-04", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "636", "last_page": "639", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "210 N.C. 636" } ], "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": "167 N. C., 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273308 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/167/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 S. E., 782", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C., 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629905 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 S. E., 651", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N. C., 297", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621663 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0297-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S. E., 77", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N. C., 641", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627309 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0641-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 S. E., 1015", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 N. C., 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652575 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/139/0347-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 S. E., 484", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N. C., 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653106 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/117/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 S. E., 571", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 S. E., 815", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N. C., 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657944 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/143/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S. E., 228", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N. C., 104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654727 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/158/0104-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 S. E., 489", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 N. C., 542", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272253 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/160/0542-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S. E., 214", "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": "159 S. E., 446", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N. C., 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622747 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 N. C., 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657996 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/128/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 S. E., 283", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 N. C., 817", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8633048 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/206/0817-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N. C., 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8685448 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/90/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 N. C., 657", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657940 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0657-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 N. C., 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2221626 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/209/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 S. E., 450", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N. C., 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596111 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 S. E., 685", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N. C., 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629745 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S. E., 260", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N. C., 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623769 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 S. E., 445", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11268538 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S. E., 602", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 704", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613476 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0704-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S. E., 85", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 N. C., 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654110 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/186/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 S. E., 109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 N. C., 736", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8632747 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/206/0736-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 S. E., 899", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 N. C., 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630455 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/206/0370-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 535, "char_count": 8218, "ocr_confidence": 0.492, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.573528377991624e-07, "percentile": 0.8864030296747031 }, "sha256": "1e83ba4cb42e841b15394e8d98b2f578ba0aca001f8c00a4f299f554c6df1908", "simhash": "1:336be2967e37d7f3", "word_count": 1472 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "R. O. ABERNETHY v. W. W. BURNS et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThis is the same case that was before us at the Spring-Term, 1934, reported in 206 N. C., 370, 173 S. E., 899. There it was said in regard to the plaintiff, a layman, trying his own lawsuit: \u201cHe may not get to first base, but he is entitled to come to the bat.\u201d Continuing the simile, he did come to the bat at the May Term, 1936, and was called out on strikes. He again appeals, complaining at the rulings of the umpire.\nIn his application to appeal in forma pauperis, plaintiff avers he \u201cis advised by two counsel learned in the law that there was error of law in the ruling of the court below.\u201d Just why he is advised and not represented by counsel is not apparent, unless, perhaps, the advice given was of the curb-stone variety or gratuitous kind.\nA word about the record: Plaintiff was allowed forty days within which to prepare and serve his statement of case on appeal, and the defendants given forty days thereafter to serve countercase or file exceptions. The plaintiff duly served his case within the time. No exceptions were filed by the defendants and no counterease was served by them. The plaintiff\u2019s statement of case, therefore, became the \u201ccase on appeal.\u201d C. S., 643; S. v. Ray, 206 N. C., 736, 175 S. E., 109; S. v. Humphrey, 186 N. C., 533, 120 S. E., 85; Carter v. Bryant, 199 N. C., 704, 155 S. E., 602; Barber v. Justice, 138 N. C., 20, 50 S. E., 445. It is far from \u201ca concise statement of the case,\u201d and doubtless out of line with what transpired before the trial court, nevertheless, the defendants, by their silence or failure to return it with objections, have consented that \u201cit shall he deemed approved.\u201d C. S., 643. It imports verity, and we are bound by it. S. v. Brown, 207 N. C., 156, 176 S. E., 260. The defendants say in their brief, \u201cUnless the Court is thoroughly familiar with the history of all this litigation, it would be very difficult, from the record and appellant\u2019s brief, to know at times what he is talking about.\u201d This is quite true. The record is involved, couched in infelicitous terms, and difficult to comprehend. The conciseness of the transcript, as well as its clarity, doubtless would have been aided by a counter-statement of the case. But the time for this has passed. S. v. Ray, supra. We must take it as it is. S. v. Humphrey, supra.\nWithout undertaking to detail the evidence in the peculiar language of the record, suffice it to say plaintiff and his witnesses seem to testify, in substance, and apparently without objection: (1) That plaintiff was arrested on a false charge of trespass at the instance of the defendants; (2) that he was abused and mistreated by the officers on instructions from Little and Burns, the defendants; (3) that he was assaulted by defendants\u2019 agent, while under indictment; (4) that the trial in the municipal court was coram non judice; (5) that on appeal to the Superior Court, a nolle prosequi was entered; (6) that plaintiff has been greatly injured thereby, undergone \u201cgreat suffwring,\u201d etc.; and (7) that the action is not barred by the statute of limitations.\nThus, on the record as it appears here, the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, taken in its most favorable light, would appear to be sufficient to carry the case to the jury. The proceeding in the municipal court, if, indeed, it were coram non judice, was a nullity, and the judgment rendered therein void. Greene v. Stadiem, 197 N. C., 472, 149 S. E., 685; S. v. Baxter, 208 N. C., 90, 179 S. E., 450. Of course, we do not say such is the case\u2014 only that there is evidence on the record tending to show it. A void judgment may be attacked either directly (Oliver v. Hood, 209 N. C., 291, 183 N. C., 657), or collaterally. Dunn v. Wilson, ante, 493; McKee v. Angel, 90 N. C., 60. It could not avail as the basis for a plea of estoppel. Harrell v. Welstead, 206 N. C., 817, 175 S. E., 283. Hence, the case of Price v. Stanley, 128 N. C., 38, cited and relied upon by defendants, is not controlling.\nThe nolle prosequi, subsequently taken in the Superior Court, was a sufficient termination of the prosecution to support an action for malicious prosecution based thereon. Dickerson v. Refining Co., 201 N. C., 90, 159 S. E., 446; Winkler v. Blowing Rock Lines, 195 N. C., 673, 143 S. E., 214.\nThere is this distinction between an action for malicious prosecution and one for abuse of process. In the former, it is necessary to allege and to prove three things, not required in the latter: (1) Malice, (2) want of probable cause, and (3) termination of proceeding upon which action is based. Wright v. Harris, 160 N. C., 542, 76 S. E., 489; Ludwick v. Penny, 158 N. C., 104, 73 S. E., 228; Stanford v. Grocery Co., 143 N. C., 419, 55 S. E., 815; R. R. v. Hdw. Co., 138 N. C., 175, 50 S. E., 571; Lockhart v. Bear, 117 N. C., 298, 23 S. E., 484; Jackson v. Tel. Co., 139 N. C., 347, 51 S. E., 1015; 50 C. J., 612; 1 R. C. L., 101, et seq.\nThe distinctive nature of an action for abuse of process, as compared with an action for malicious prosecution, is that the former lies for the improper use of process after it has been issued, and not for maliciously causing process to issue. 1 Am. Jur., 176; Martin v. Motor Co., 201 N. C., 641, 161 S. E., 77; Griffin v. Baker, 192 N. C., 297, 134 S. E., 651; Lockhart v. Bear, supra.\nSpeaking to the subject in Klander v. West, 205 N. C., 524, 171 S. E., 782, it was said: \u201cIn an action for abuse of process, it is not necessary to show malice, want of probable cause, or termination of the action; the two essential elements are the existence of an ulterior purpose and an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding. The act must be willful. Carpenter v. Hanes, 167 N. C., 551.\u201d\nThe whole matter is thoroughly discussed, with full citation of authorities, in Carpenter v. Hanes, supra, and Wright v. Harris, supra. It would serve no useful purpose to elaborate it further here.\nEeversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "B. 0. Abernethy, in propria persona, for plaintiff, appellant.", "J. L. Murphy, D. M. McComb, Jr., and Thos. P. Pruitt for defendants, appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "R. O. ABERNETHY v. W. W. BURNS et al.\n(Filed 4 November, 1936.)\n1. Appeal and Error O b\u2014\nWhere appellant duly makes out and serves his statement of case on appeal within the time allowed, and appellee fails to except and file countercase, appellant\u2019s statement of case becomes the \u201ccase on appeal.\u201d O. S., 643.\n2. Appeal and Error E g\u2014\nWhere appellee does not except and file countercase to appellant\u2019s statement of case on appeal, appellant\u2019s statement of case, having become the \u201ccase on appeal,\u201d imports verity, and the Supreme Court is bound thereby.\nS. Appeal and Error J d\u2014\nWhere plaintiff appellant\u2019s statement of case on appeal becomes the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d through failure of appellee to file countercase, and the record thus constituted contains evidence sufficient to sustain plaintiff\u2019s causes of action when viewed in the light most favorable to him, a judgment as of nonsuit entered in the court below must be reversed on appeal.\n4. Judgments K f\u2014\nA judgment rendered in proceedings coram non judice is void, and may be attacked either directly or collaterally.\n5. Judgments L d\u2014\nA void judgment will not support a plea of estoppel by judgment.\n6. Malicious Prosecution A d\u2014\nA nolle prosequi is a sufficient termination of a prosecution to support an action for malicious prosecution based thereon.\n7. Malicious Prosecution A a\u2014\nThe distinction between an action for malicious prosecution and one for abuse of process is that malicious prosecution is based upon malice in causing process to issue, while abuse of process lies for the improper use of process after it has been issued, and in the former plaintiff must prove malice, want of probable cause, and termination of the prosecution.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Clement, J., at May Term, 1936, of Catawba.\nCivil action to recover damages for alleged (1) malicious prosecution, (2) abuse of process, (3) trespass, and (4) wrongful conversion.\nThe answer denies tbe material allegations of the complaint, sets up estoppel by judgment, and pleads the statute of limitations.\nFrom a judgment of nonsuit, entered at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, he appeals, assigning errors.\nB. 0. Abernethy, in propria persona, for plaintiff, appellant.\nJ. L. Murphy, D. M. McComb, Jr., and Thos. P. Pruitt for defendants, appellees." }, "file_name": "0636-01", "first_page_order": 702, "last_page_order": 705 }