VEXATIOUS SUIT, LITIGATION - A vexatictus
suit is one which has been instituted maliciously, and
without probable cause, whereby a damage has ensued to
the defendant.
The suit is either a criminal prosecution, a conviction
before a magistrate, or a civil action. The suit need
not be altogether without foundation; if the part which
is groundless has subjected the party to an inconvenience,
to which he would not have been exposed had the valid
cause of complaint alone have been insisted on, it is
injurious.
To make it vexatious, the suit must have been instituted
maliciously. As malice is not in any case of injurious
conduct necessarily to be inferred from the total absence
of probable cause for exciting it, and in the present
instance the law will not allow it to be inferred from
that circumstance, for fear of being mistaken, it casts
upon the suffering party the onus of proving express
malice.
It is necessary that the prosecution should have been
carried on without probable cause. The law presumes
that probable cause existed until the party aggrieved
can show to the contrary. Hence he is bound to show
the total absence of probable cause. He is also under
the same obligation when the original proceeding was
a civil action.
The damage which the party injured sustains from a
vexatious suit for a crime, is either to his person,
his reputation, his estate or his relative rights. 1.
whenever imprisonment is occasioned by a malicious unfounded
criminal prosecution, the injury is complete, although
the detention may have been momentary, and the party
released on bail. 2. When the bill of indictment contains
scandalous aspersions likely to impair the reputation
of the accused, the damage is complete. 3. Notwithstanding
his person is left at liberty, and his character is
unstained by the proceedings, (as where the indictment
is for a trespass) yet if he necessarily incurs expense
in defending himself against the charge, he has a right
to have his losses made good. 4. If a master loses the
services and assistance of his domestics, in consequence
of a vexatious suit, he may claim a compensation. With
regard to a damage resulting from a civil action, when
prosecuted in a court of competent jurisdiction, the
only detriment the party can sustain, is the imprisonment
of his person, or the seizure of his property, for as
to any expense, he may be put to, this, in contemplation
of law, has been fully compensated to him by the costs
adjudged. But where the original suit was coram non
judice, the party as the law formerly stood, necessarily
incurred expense without the power of remuneration,
unless by this action, because any award of costs the
court might make would have been a nullity. However,
by a late decision such an adjudication was holden unimpeachable,
land that the party might well have an action of debt
to recover the amount. So that the law, in this respect,
seems to have taken a new turn, and, perhaps, it would
now be decided, that no action can under any other circumstances
but imprisonment of the person or seizure of the property,
be maintained for suing in an improper court.
