City of Moorhead v. Murphy

Decision Date20 January 1905
PartiesCITY OF MOORHEAD v. MURPHY.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

94 Minn. 123
102 N.W. 219

CITY OF MOORHEAD
v.
MURPHY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 20, 1905.


Appeal from District Court, Clay County; L. L. Baxter, Judge.

Application of T. L. Murphy for reimbursement of legal expenses as police officer was allowed by the counsel of the city of Moorhead, and the city attorney appealed. Petitioner filed his complaint. Demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and petitioner appeals. Reversed.


Syllabus by the Court

1. In the absence of prohibitive charter provisions, a municipality has the power to reimburse a police officer for expenses and attorney's fees incurred in the defense of an action for false imprisonment; it appearing that the officer was acting in good faith in the exercise of his official duties.


[102 N.W. 219]

Wm. R. Tillotson and F. H. Peterson, for appellant.

James M. Witherow, for respondent.


LEWIS, J.

Respondent city is a municipal corporation, and appellant was the duly appointed, qualified, and acting chief of police for 1901 and 1902. February 20, 1902, appellant effected the arrest of one Allen Blood for a violation of a city ordinance. The following April 11th, Blood commenced an action in the United States court against appellant to recover damages for false arrest and imprisonment. The cause was tried at the June, 1902, term of the United States District Court at Fargo, N. D., and appellant employed certain attorneys to represent and defend him at such trial. The city attorney of respondent corporation also appeared, by virtue of his office, and assisted in the defense. August 1st thereafter, the attorneys so employed rendered to appellant a bill of $300 for their services, which, together with a bill for disbursements necessarily incurred in the conduct of litigation, amounting to $90, he presented to respondent city, and on the following December 8th the common council duly allowed and paid the bill, and the money received by appellant was used by him in paying the attorney's fees and in reimbursing himself. After the bill was allowed and paid by the city, and within the time allowed by law, upon the request of seven taxpayers, the city attorney appealed from the decision of the council allowing the bill. The appeal having been perfected, appellant here served his complaint, which stated the facts substantially as above set forth. The complaint was demurred to upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against respondent, and the demurrer was sustained.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT