Where, as in the case sub judice, the petition alleges that the defendant caused a distress warrant to issue against the plaintiff maliciously and without probable *8cause, but fails to allege that the distress-warrant proceedings terminated favorably to the plaintiff, the petition set forth no cause of action in trespass (Sledge v. McLaren, 29 Ga. 74; Parter v. Johnson, 96 Ga. 148, 23 SE 123; Fulton Grocery Co. v. Maddox, 111 Ga. 260, 36 SE 647), or for malicious use of process. Sparrow v. Weld, 177 Ga. 134 (169 SE 487). There is a clear distinction between the seizure of property under a valid process, as in this case, and the seizure of property of a person under process which is invalid or void upon its face, or where no process has ever issued against him.

Judgment affirmed.