Supreme Lodge American Protective League v. Unverzagt

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant brought an action on the case against the appellees in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, alleging in its narr. that it is a body corporate for social and beneficial purposes, and that the appellees wilfully and maliciously, and without probable cause, instituted a suit for its dissolution in the Circuit Court, Ho. 2, of Baltimore City. The narr. further alleges, that in the bill filed by them in said suit, the appellees made many false, malicious, and slanderous allegations against the appellant, and widely circulated the same for the purpose of destroying the confidence of the public in the appellant. It is also alleged, that the appellees did in fact, in the manner aforesaid, injure the appellant, and that having taken no proof, the suit was dismissed by order of Court.

To this declaration the defendants demurred, and their demurrer having been sustained, and judgment having been entered in their favor, the plaintiff' corporation has appealed. The only question, therefore, presented by this record is the sufficiency of the declaration, and this involves a question about which there has been much conflict of authority in this country, namely, when and under what circumstances an action on the case lies for falsely, maliciously, and without probable cause bringing a civil suit. At common law, an action on the case was given for all civil cases brought falsely, maliciously, and without probable cause. Nor was the right to such action at all dependent upon an interference with either the person or property.

But after the passage of the Statute of Marlbridge in the fifty-second year of Henry the Third, which gave costs to the defendant by way of damage against the plaintiff pro falso clamore, it was held that the malicious ¹⁰⁶ prosecution of a civil suit without' probable cause, was not good ground for an action on the case, unless there was an arrest of the person, or a seizure of property, or other special injury, which would not necessarily result in all suits prosecuted to recover for like causes of action. Co. Lit., 161a; Webster vs. Haigh, 3 Lev., 210; Goslin vs. Wilcock, 2 Wilson, 302 ; 3 Chitty Bla., 126, and note 14; Savill vs. Roberts, 12 Mod., 208; 14 Am. and Eng. Encycl. of Law, 32,. and cases there cited. In this country some of the States have adopted the common law doctrine as it existed in England before the enactment of the Statute of Marlbridge, and others adhere to the modern rule which has prevailed there since .the passage of that statute.

In the case of McNamee vs. Minke, 49 Md., 122 , which was an action on the case for the malicious prosecution of an ejectment suit, we have fully adopted the latter doctrine, and the language there used, — the present Chief Justice delivering the opinion of the Court, disposes of this case : “It is true, a party may be held liable for a false and malicious prosecution of either a .criminal or civil proceeding; but, when it h'as been attempted to hold a party liable for the prosecution of a civil proceeding, it has generally been in cases where there has been an alleged malicious arrest of the person, as in the case of Turner vs. Walker, 3 Gill & John., 377, or a groundless and malicious seizure of property, or