Brooks v. Mangan
| Decision Date | 28 July 1891 |
| Citation | 49 N.W. 633,86 Mich. 576 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | BROOKS v. MANGAN et al. |
Error to circuit court, Bay county; GEORGE P. COBB, Judge.
Action by Dwight Brooks against Daniel Mangan, police justice, and Samuel Catlin, a policeman, for false imprisonment. Defendants bring error. Reversed.
T. A. E. & J. C. Weadock, for appellants.
Gallagher & Barry, for appellee.
Plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment against defendants for false imprisonment for $450. Defendant Mangan was the police justice of Bay City, and defendant Catlin was a policeman. One Michael Tanney entered a complaint against the plaintiff charging him with a violation of a city ordinance in regard to hawking and peddling. Warrant was issued by the justice and placed in the hands of Catlin, who executed it by arresting plaintiff, and bringing him before the justice for trial. The trial was adjourned three days, and plaintiff permitted to go on his own recognizance. He waived a trail by jury, was convicted, sentenced to pay a fine of $100, and in default thereof that he be confined in the county jail until the payment thereof, not exceeding 90 days. He refused to pay the fine, and was committed to jail, where he remained four days, after which he was released on an appeal-bond, having appealed his case to the circuit court. Plaintiff employed an attorney upon the trial of the cause before the justice, who there claimed that the ordinance was unconstitutional and void. The justice had jurisdiction of the person and of the subject-matter of the suit. It is not claimed that the defendants acted in bad faith. On the contrary, it is manifest that both acted honestly, and in the belief that they were in the performance of their official duties. The violation of the ordinance by plaintiff is conceded. The sole question raised before the justice was upon the validity of the ordinance. The defendant Mangan, in the exercise of his honest judgment, held it valid, and the defendant Catlin acted upon a warrant and commitment fair upon their face. The ordinance required every person soliciting a license as a hawker or peddler to pay $10 for the first day, and $5 for each subsequent day, if he traveled on foot; if he traveled with one horse, $20 for the first day, and $15 for each subsequent day; if he traveled with two or more horses, $25 for the first day, and $15 for each subsequent day. We think the ordinance invalid on account of its unreasonableness. Practically, if enforced, it would amount to a prohibition of the business. The ordinance is objectionable upon another ground, viz., it makes an unjust discrimination between residents of Bay City and non-residents. It practically exempts residents from its provisions, while imposing so unjust and unreasonable a license upon non-residents. Counsel for the defendants did not seriously contend for its validity. The main question is: Are these defendants to be held responsible in a civil action, the one for his judicial determination, and the other for executing a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction? Plaintiff's counsel state their position as follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial