Texas Skaggs Inc. v. Graves Ct. Of Civ. App.,

582 S.W.2d 863 (1979)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

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 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.