Oscar B. Heyne, Appellant v. Charles C. Blair, Respondent

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s directed verdict for the defendant and ordered a new trial, holding that the plaintiff must prove both lack of probable cause and malice in a malicious prosecution action and that when the evidence on probable cause is not undisputed, the issue is a mixed question of law and fact that must be submitted to the jury. The court emphasized that the burden rests on the plaintiff and that the trial court erred in taking the matter away from the jury. Justice Miller’s dissent argued that the defendant had sufficient probable cause and that the verdict should be affirmed.