Barfield v. Turner

• Decision Date: 26 November 1888
• Citation: 8 S.E. 115,101 N.C. 357
• Parties: BARFIELD v. TURNER et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

8 S.E. 115

101 N.C. 357

BARFIELD v. TURNER et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 26, 1888

Appeal from superior court, Montgomery county; BOYKIN, Judge.

Action by J. C. Barfield against P. H. Turner, W. F. Hudson, W. W Hailey, and D. C. Baldwin. Plaintiff appeals.

A complaint, purporting to state but one cause of action, and alleging that plaintiff was arrested by one of the defendants under color of process sued out by another defendant before a justice of the peace, also a defendant, and taken before him and another justice of the peace, also a defendant, and that while so arrested he suffered and sustained damages, without alleging that the process was void or groundless, or had expired, or that it was issued maliciously or without probable cause, does not state a cause of action, though it also alleges, as matter of aggravation, that plaintiff was wrongfully and illegally imprisoned by defendants.

Douglas & Shaw and Batchelor & Devereux, for appellant.

MERRIMON J.

The following is a copy of the complaint: "(1) That on or about the 13th of February, 1885, the defendant W. F. Hudson assaulted and arrested the plaintiff under color of process sued out by the defendant W. W. Hailey, before the defendant D. C. Baldwin, and brought the plaintiff before the defendants Baldwin and Turner, justices of the peace; (2) that defendants, Turner, Hudson, Baldwin, and Hailey, on or about the time aforesaid, illegally, wrongfully, and without legal authority, caused plaintiff to be imprisoned in the dwelling-house of said Hailey, and also in the common jail of Montgomery county, whereby he was deprived of his liberty for a long time; (3) that while under arrest as aforesaid, and during said imprisonment, the plaintiff suffered great pain in body and mind, and was exposed and injured in his credit and circumstances, and prevented from carrying on his business, and incurred expense in obtaining his liberation from said imprisonment, to his damage two thousand dollars. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for $2,000, and costs." The defendants filed an answer to the complaint, but, on call of the case for trial, the defendants demurred ore tenus to the complaint, for that it appeared upon the face of the complaint that defendants were acting under color of process, and that there were no averments of malice nor of want of probable cause, nor that the said cause in which the process was issued has been terminated. Whereupon it was considered by the court that the demurrer be sustained and the action dismissed. Judgment against plaintiff for costs, and he, having excepted appealed to this court.

The cases of Garrett v. Trotter, 65 N.C. 430; Johnson v. Finch, 93 N.C. 205; and Halstead v Mullen, Id. 252;...