(Filed 16 December, 1931.)
Principal and Agent C d — Action against principal will be dismissed where there is no evidence that he authorized or ratified act of agent.
Where a principal is sued for damages for false arrest as a result of a warrant procured by his agent, the action will be dismissed in the absence of evidence that the principal authorized the act of the agent or ratified his act in procuring the warrant.
Appeal by plaintiff from Hanvood, Special Judge, at August Term, 1931, of YaNcey.
Affirmed.
This is an action to recover damages for the false arrest and malicious prosecution of plaintiff upon a criminal warrant procured by an agent of the defendants, charging the plaintiff with larceny.
From judgment dismissing the action as upon nonsuit at the close of his evidence, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
G. D. Bailey and 0. B. Hammch for plaintiff.
Charles Hutchins and Piess & Bless for defendants.
Pee CueiaM.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that their agent was authorized by defendants to procure the warrant on which plaintiff was arrested and prosecuted, or that defendants ratified the action of their agent in procuring the warrant and prosecuting the plaintiff, this action was properly dismissed. Lamm v. Charles Stores Co., ante, 134, 159 S. E., 444. The judgment is
Affirmed.