TEXAS SKAGGS INC. V. GRAVES
Ct. of Civ. App., 582 S.W.2d 863 (1979)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Skaggs (D) appealed from a judgment that was in favor of Graves (P)
in a malicious prosecution action.
FACTS: P worked as a checker in D's store in Texarkana, Arkansas, but was 'fired' for
reasons not material to this case. P continued to purchase her groceries at D and often paid
for them by check. She shared her checking account with her husband. She left one or two
blank checks, signed by her, with her husband so he could draw on the account. When the
couple separated, the husband withdrew all of the funds from the account so that on January
2nd and January 5th, 1977, the two checks written by P to pay for groceries were returned to
Skaggs marked 'Insufficient Funds.' The two checks for $13.17 and $21.53. D's entry for
January 27, 1977, shows that P was contacted and agreed to pay as soon as she could get her
money from the D credit union. P had promised she would pick up the checks as soon as she
received the money and that D had agreed to wait. D sent certified letters to P concerning
the two checks. P testified that she never received either certified letter because during
her period of unemployment she had to stay with her mother who helped her care for her three
children and consequently was not at her own home to receive the mail. On February 17th, P
received her money from the credit union and on the same day purchased a money order and
mailed it to D to cover the 'hot' checks. D admits that it received the payment for the
checks. D, filed an 'Incident Report' with the Texarkana, Arkansas Police Department
reporting P for a violation of the Arkansas Hot Check Law. On February 22nd, an 'Affidavit
for Warrant of Arrest' for P and a warrant of arrest was issued the same day. There is no
evidence indicating that P knew or had any reason to know that the warrant had been issued
until the day she was arrested. P visited the store on March 3, 1977, to do some shopping
with a friend. A manager summoned the police, who came and arrested P. She tried to explain
to the arresting officer, that the checks had been paid, but Arnold, operating on the
warrant, took her out of the store and to the police station where she was booked on a hot
check charge. The police then telephoned D and learned that the checks had, in fact, been
paid. P was released and the police returned the two checks to her (that had been attached
to the Affidavit for Warrant of Arrest). The police were then told by D that they did not
care if she had paid the checks, they wanted her prosecuted. The next morning, March 4th,
the officer drove to Ps' home in Texas and told her that D intended to prosecute her that
afternoon. P hired an attorney and appeared in Court. The municipal judge dismissed the case
when the prosecution could not produce the 'hot' checks. P then sued for malicious
prosecution. P was awarded $20,000. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment