Collins v. Cody

• Citation: 113 A. 709
• Parties: COLLINS v. CODY et al.
• Decision Date: 02 August 1920
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

113 A. 709

COLLINS

v. CODY et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Aug. 2, 1920.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Action by Frank A. Collins against John J. Cody and another. Verdict for plaintiff, on rule to show cause. Rule discharged.

Argued June term, 1920, before SWAYZE, PARKER, and BLACK, JJ.

Press & Press, of Newark, for plaintiff.

John Bentley, of Jersey City, for defendant.

BLACK, J. The record in this case shows the plaintiff was employed by the Brady Brass Company in Jersey City. On the 16th of July, 1919, when at work, the defendants Inspector Cody and Capt. Rooney, of the Jersey City Police Department, arrested the plaintiff. The defendant was searched, then taken to the Second Precinct Station. This was about 2:30 in the afternoon. The plaintiff was there searched again, and put into a patrol wagon, and taken to police headquarters. There he was taken into a side room, and finger-printed. He was then taken back to the Second Precinct Station and held in $500 bail. A $1,000 Liberty Bond was deposited as security. He was then released about 6:30 that afternoon. He was then told to appear at the Second Precinct Station, in the morning, at 9 o'clock. Next morning, after waiting an hour or so, he was told to come again the following morning at 9 o'clock. That morning he was called and brought before a magistrate. Then he was found guilty of disorderly conduct, sentence suspended, and ordered to get out of Jersey City at once. Subsequently the proceedings were dismissed by the county judge on appeal. All this was done without any charge or complaint laid or made against the plaintiff, without any offense committed by him, and without any warrant issued for his arrest. The only authority for making the arrest, to use the words of the defendants in their testimony, was, as Inspector Cody testified, he was instructed to take Capt. Rooney and place Collins under arrest; he knew nothing against Collins, had no complaint against or warrant for his arrest, when asked if he did not know that it was wrong to arrest Collins, the only answer he would give was, "I always obey orders." Rooney testified:

"Q. Did you have any reason to arrest him [i. e., Collins]? A. I had reason to arrest him. I received my orders to arrest him."

Subsequently the defendants were sued by the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for false imprisonment. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants obtained a rule to show cause. We are asked to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial on the ground chiefly because the trial judge refused to charge the defendant's requests, such as: (a) In the absence of malice upon the part of the defendants only nominal damages can be awarded, (b) A police officer is not responsible in damages for an arrest, unless his conduct is such as to indicate malice. (c) A legal order to a police officer protects such police officer in the making of an arrest in a proper and ordinary manner. Suffice it to say, we find no error in the refusal of the trial court to charge these requests. In the first place, the officers who made the arrest had no legal order for making the arrest; in the second place, malice in a legal sense signifies nothing more than a wrongful act done intentionally,...