Coffman v. Shell Petroleum Corp.

• Citation: 71 S.W.2d 97,228 Mo.App. 727
• Parties: JOHN COFFMAN, RESPONDENT, v. SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. ET AL., APPELLANTS
• Decision Date: 02 April 1934
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas

71 S.W.2d 97

228 Mo.App. 727

JOHN COFFMAN, RESPONDENT, v. SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. ET AL., APPELLANTS

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

April 2, 1934

Appeal from Circuit Court of Grundy County.--Hon. A. G. Knight Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

L. A Warden and Agnes Mae Wilson for respondent.

Thompson Mitchell, Thompson & Young and C. P. Berry for appellants.

OPINION

TRIMBLE, J.

As we understand it, this is a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, although one of the parties to this appeal refers to it as a suit for false arrest and malicious prosecution. If we mistake not, there is a difference between the two. Technically, or rather correctly speaking, a suit for false arrest or false imprisonment is the proper action where the aggrieved person is arrested without legal process; but where the process on which the arrest was made is regular on its face, but was sued out maliciously and without probable cause, the remedy of the injured person is an action for malicious prosecution. The two actions, however, are closely akin and sometimes a transaction may constitute both a false imprisonment and a malicious prosecution. [11 R. C. L. 790, 791.]

Originally, the action herein was against Shell Petroleum Corporation, Joe Hickman, Cleo Runnels, Rex Duke and Roy Miller. At the close of all the testimony, the court sustained demurrers thereto in favor of Rex Duke and Roy Miller, but overruled them, individually and collectively, as to the three remaining defendants, the Shell Petroleum Corporation, Joe Hickman and Cleo Runnels.

The second amended petition, on which the case was submitted, alleged--

That the individual defendants, Hickman and Runnels, as agents and employees of the Shell Petroleum Corporation, were engaged in the operation of a filling stating in Trenton, Missouri, for the sale and distribution of oil and gasoline, and at the times hereinafter mentioned were acting within the scope of their authority and in the course of their employment; that defendant Shell Petroleum Corporation was engaged in the operation of said filling station and in the sale of oil, gasoline and motor accessories;

That on or about December 1, 1930, defendants, maliciously intending to injure plaintiff in his good name and reputation, and to bring plaintiff into disgrace and cause him to be arrested and imprisoned, did wantonly, wilfully and maliciously, by fraud and perjury, and without any probable cause whatsoever, cause and procure an information to be filed by the prosecuting attorney of Grundy County, Missouri, in the justice court of a justice of the peace in said county, charging plaintiff with having, on said date, stolen $ 10 from the said Shell filling station, and upon said information procured a warrant of arrest to be issued by said justice for the arrest of plaintiff on said charge;

That thereafter, on the same day, the sheriff and other officers, at the request of said defendants and each of them, went to plaintiff's home and arrested plaintiff on said warrant, and took him to the county jail and therein imprisoned him and on December 2, 1930, the plaintiff was required to and did give bond in the sum of $ 500 to appear in court on December 10, 1930, and had to give said bond in order to obtain his release;

That thereafter on December 4, 1930, the prosecuting attorney, having become fully convinced that said charge was wholly false and untrue and that plaintiff was innocent, dismissed said cause, and plaintiff was fully discharged and the prosecution was fully ended; that plaintiff was not guilty of said criminal offense, and that said charge and complaint were wholly false;

That defendants in their efforts to press and carry forward their malicious prosecution of plaintiff on said false criminal charge, went to the jail, talked with the officers, pointed out plaintiff through the bars as a thief, and threatened him with a long term in the penitentiary unless he pleaded guilty to the charge, paid the costs of the proceedings and repaid the $ 10;

That defendants, in further efforts to injure plaintiff and intending to injure his good name and reputation, maliciously and without probable cause, and at their own instance, caused a report of the alleged robbery and theft and of the arrest, to be published in the Trenton Republican Times, a newspaper having a large circulation in Grundy and other counties; that plaintiff was born and had lived in Grundy County and never theretofore had been arrested and had always borne a good reputation, all of which defendants knew or by the exercise of diligence could have known.

The said second amended petition then alleged that by reason of the aforesaid facts plaintiff had been greatly injured in his reputation and had been brought into public disgrace among his neighbors and other good citizens of the county where he lives and of other surrounding counties where he and his family are widely known, by which he suffered great anxiety and mental anguish, and received lasting injury to his health, lost his job, where he was employed, on account of said arrest, and has been unable to secure employment elsewhere, and expended a large sum in order to defend himself, all to his damage in the sum of $ 25,000 for which together with a further sum of $ 25,000 as punitive damages, he prayed judgment.

Defendants Shell Petroleum Corporation and Cleo Runnels filed a general denial.

Defendant Joe Hickman filed a separate amended answer which was first a general denial, and then he set up that--

On December 1, 1930, at seven P. M., while he was operating the service station for Cleo Runnels under a verbal commission agreement with him, plaintiff and a companion with him came to the said filling station and requested this defendant to do certain work on an automobile then and there being driven by them. Defendant went outside and did said work while plaintiff and his companion remained in said station, and no one else was in said station except this defendant's small son, a boy about ten years of age.

That prior thereto, Joe Hickman had counted the money taken in that day and had placed it in a money drawer in the customary way, and on the top of the money he placed two $ 5 bills.

That after this defendant had completed the work on plaintiff's automobile, said plaintiff and his companion drove away and defendant later discovered that the two $ 5 bills were missing, and immediately made search of the premises and inquired of his small son, who denied any knowledge of said money; nevertheless defendant caused his small son to be searched but was unable to find the money.

That as a result of all which, it appeared to this defendant that the only way in which said money could have been removed was through the act of plaintiff and his companion. Plaintiff was unknown to defendant, but defendant knew the companion and believed him to be of questionable reputation; that it was almost impossible for either of said men to have taken the money without the knowledge and cooperation of the other; and this defendant believed in good faith and had good cause to believe, and, on account of the circumstances there was no other reasonable conclusion, than that said money had been stolen by the two men jointly; that this defendant thereupon informed the officers, including the sheriff, of the foregoing facts.

That thereafter, the same night, a deputy sheriff brought plaintiff and his companion to said service station; this defendant had learned that the two men had money on their persons; plaintiff's companion had previously professed to have no money with which to pay this defendant and had promised to pay the same later;

That in view of all said circumstances, this defendant believed in good faith, and had good cause to believe, that plaintiff and his companion had taken the money and had spent a portion of the same and that the money found on their persons by the said deputy sheriff, was a portion of the two $ 5 bills; and thereupon this defendant accused the two men of the theft of said money, which they denied;

That this defendant took no action toward the arrest or imprisonment of plaintiff and his companion, but the deputy sheriff decided to put the two men in jail for the night and hold them for investigation and prosecution;

That whatever was done by the officers of the law and not by this defendant, Joe Hickman;

That he reported the foregoing facts to the officers from a sense of duty and because he believed it proper so to do; that this defendant did not represent anyone but himself in making said report to the officers and in discussing the theft of said money with plaintiff and the officers; that all that he did was in the reasonable belief, and with reasonable cause for believing, that plaintiff and his companion were guilty of the theft of said $ 10.

Said separate answer denied that plaintiff had sustained any substantial injury; alleged that he was released next day, December 2, 1930, and publicly proclaimed innocent, and wide publicity of his vindication was given in the newspapers; that at plaintiff's request, this defendant signed an apology in which a written explanation of the error was made to the end that plaintiff should incur no injury on account of said arrest and imprisonment;

That defendant Joe Hickman represented himself only in all that he did in reference to the foregoing matters, and had no authority to represent anyone else to make any complaint or charge against plaintiff;

That this defendant, early in the afternoon of Tuesday, December 2, learned that his small son had stolen said two $ 5 bills and thereupon promptly exonerated plaintiff and his companion.

Plaintiff's reply was a general denial.

After a trial at...