Allen v. Ruland
Citation | 79 Conn. 405,65 A. 138 |
Parties | ALLEN v. RULAND et al. |
Decision Date | 18 December 1906 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.
Action for false imprisonment by William S. Allen against Frederick D. Ruland and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The third defense read thus: "One James H. Ward and one Edith Ward were joint tort-feasors with the defendants in the alleged seizure and detention of the plaintiff, and, since the institution of this action, to wit: on the ——— day of ——, the plaintiff has executed and delivered to said James H. Ward and Edith Ward, for a valuable consideration, a full release and discharge of said cause of action, and thereby discharged these defendants from all claims for dam ages for said alleged cause of action." After the overruling of the demurrer to it, the following reply was filed: To this a rejoinder was filed denying the truth of the allegations in its second paragraph.
On the trial it was undisputed that the plaintiff had been confined for a time by the defendants in a sanitarium at Westport; and that he had a sister Ethel (or Ethelinda), who was the wife of James H. Ward. The plaintiff offered evidence that he had complained to Mr. and Mrs. Ward of having been annoyed by strangers on the street, and that soon afterwards he was forcibly taken against his will to this sanitarium by attendants of the defendants sent for the purpose at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Ward, and accompanied by Mr. Ward; that he was kept there under restraint from 1896 to 1902; and that Mrs. Ward, meanwhile, took charge of his financial affairs, and from his moneys paid the defendants for keeping him so confined, and also for certain extras furnished to the plaintiff at his own request
The defendants offered evidence that in 1896 the plaintiff had been pronounced insane by two physicians, who advised Mr. and Mrs. Ward that he should be at once placed under restraint; that, at Mrs. Ward's request, the defendants with Mr. Ward took him to their sanitarium; and that in 1903, after he had been released from all constraint, and had left the sanitarium, an attorney, acting for Mr. and Mrs. Ward, paid him $200, in full satisfaction of any money demand against them, taking the following release:
The defendants further offered evidence that afterwards a controversy arose between the plaintiff and his sister as to the ownership of certain articles of personal property, and that he thereupon gave Mr. and Mrs. Ward a paper, with a schedule attached, which paper read as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Thompson
......Co. v. Goodholm, 61 Kan. 758, 60 P. 1066; Cleveland, etc.,. R. R. Co. v. Hilligoss, 171 Ind. 417, 86 N.E. 485, 131. Am. St. Rep. 258; Allen v. Ruland, 79 Conn. 405, 65. A. 138, 118 Am. St. Rep. 146, 8 Ann. Cas. 344; 34 Cyc. 1053,. and cases cited. . . Whether. or not ......
-
Natrona Power Company v. Clark
...statements or reservations outside the written release was incompetent, Reynolds v. Morton supra; 1 Greenleaf 13th ed. 275; Allen v. Ruland supra; Goss Ellison supra; Leddy v. Barney supra; Ry. Co. v. Sullivan supra; Wodock v. Robertson supra; Sayre v. Burdick supra; Current v. Muir supra; ......
-
Dwy v. Conn. Co.
...of unexpressed intent. Brooks v. Stewart, 9 Ad. & El. L. 854; Cocks v. Nash, 9 Bing. 341, 345; Allen v. Ruland, 79 Conn. 405, 411, 65 Atl. 138, 118 Am. St. Rep. 146, 8 Ann. Cas. 344. It has also been said that the seal affixed to the release furnishes a conclusive presumption that the relea......
- Bernhard v. Rochester German Ins. Co.