Bates v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 15 May 1907 |
| Citation | 195 Mass. 549,81 N.E. 260 |
| Parties | BATES v. REYNOLDS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Wm. H. Brown and Thomas Mannix, for plaintiff.
J. O Burdett, for defendant.
No question of pleading was raised at the trial, or is open upon these exceptions. The only ground of objection to the instructions given as to the effect of an understanding between the parties that the plaintiff should be released from arrest and should make no claim against the defendant for damages was that there was no evidence upon that question. Burnett v. Smith, 4 Gray (Mass.) 50; Knight v. Overman Wheel Co., 174 Mass. 455, 465 466, 54 N.E. 890.
We agree with the plaintiff that it is impossible to say as matter of law, however improbable it may be in fact, that the jury upon the judge's charge may not have found that the defendant did either arrest or detain the plaintiff, and have based their finding for the defendant upon the ground that the defendant released him at his request or with his consent upon the understanding that he was to make no claim for damages. If accordingly there was no evidence to warrant such a finding, the exceptions must be sustained. Phillips v. Fadden, 125 Mass. 198; Brock v. Stimson, 108 Mass. 520, 11 Am. Rep. 390. But we are of opinion that from all the evidence the jury might reasonably have drawn the inference that there was such a request and understanding. The defendant testified that the plaintiff said he preferred to remain at the station overnight, and that he was accordingly kept there and sent home in a carriage the next morning. The jury well might have found from this and the other evidence that the plaintiff desired to be kept there during the night and released and sent home the next morning, that is, that what was done was practically done at his request. This would bring the case within the doctrine of Caffrey v. Drugan, 144 Mass. 294, 11 N.E. 96. In that case, as in this, there was no direct evidence of an agreement to make no claim for damages, but only of the plaintiff's request to be released; and it was held that an instruction like that now complained of should have been given. To the same effect see Joyce v. Parkhurst, 150 Mass. 243, 22 N.E. 899. The jury might find that everything was amicably understood between the parties.
The question of the defendant's liability for participating with Tremaine in an unlawful arrest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Ry. Express Co. v. Stone, 2224.
...and that this is so whether the agreement to discharge the claim for damages is in writing under seal, or is oral (Bates v. Reynolds, 195 Mass. 549, 554, 81 N. E. 260; Caffrey v. Drugan, 144 Mass. 294, 295, 11 N. E. Whether the release signed at the police station was procured by duress or ......
-
Keefe v. Hart
...complain of the omission. Joyce v. Parkhurst, 150 Mass. 243, 22 N.E. 899; Caffrey v. Drugan, 144 Mass. 294, 11 N.E. 96; Bates v. Reynolds, 195 Mass. 549, 81 N.E. 260; Horgan v. Boston Elev. Ry., 208 Mass. 287, 94 386. But this is the personal option of the prisoner. The arresting officer is......
-
Kredit v. Ryan
...might be guilty of a misdemeanor in not completing the arrest or arraignment.” Caffrey v. Drugan, 144 Mass. 294, 11 NE 96; Bates v. Reynolds, 195 Mass. 549, 81 NE 260; Shea v. Sullivan et al., 261 Mass. 255, 158 NE 771; Mulberry v. Fuellhart et al., 203 Pa. 573, 53 A 504, and Clark v. Tilto......
-
Kredit v. Ryan
... ... in not completing the arrest or arraignment." Caffrey v ... Drugan, 144 Mass. 294, 11 N.E. 96; Bates v. Reynolds, 195 ... Mass. 549, 81 N.E. 260; Shea v. Sullivan et al., 261 Mass ... 255, 158 N.E. 771; Mulberry v. Fuellhart et al., 203 Pa. 573, ... ...