Connery v. Manning
| Decision Date | 28 January 1895 |
| Citation | 163 Mass. 44,39 N.E. 558 |
| Parties | CONNERY v. MANNING. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
W.G. Bassett, for plaintiff.
W.S.B Hopkins and David Manning, for defendant.
This is an action for false imprisonment and for malicious prosecution, and the case comes before us on exceptions to a ruling of the judge directing a verdict for the defendant. The alleged false imprisonment was an arrest upon the criminal complaint constituting the alleged malicious prosecution. By all the testimony the defendant did not authorize it, and it was made upon a lawful warrant, duly issued. Mullen v. Brown, 138 Mass. 114; Coupal v. Ward, 106 Mass. 289. The exception to the ruling upon this part of the case is not much pressed.
The criminal complaint was for obtaining goods under false pretenses, and the pretense relied on was contained in a written statement as to the condition of his affairs, made by the present plaintiff, Connery, to the defendant's Manning's, firm, on the faith of which they sold the plaintiff goods. It was as follows: "Own real estate assessed on valuation of $5,000." In fact, Connery's real estate was assessed at $2,150. If this were the whole case, no doubt the ruling would have been right. But it is not the whole case. It appeared that the land was mortgaged, as Connery stated in his answers, to a savings bank, for $2,900; that the savings bank had its own appraisers; that they had appraised the land at $4,000; and that since that time, at least according to Connery's testimony, he had added improvements of from $1,000 to $1,200. Connery also testified that he thought the bank assessment was the assessment as well as the town assessment, and that he did not understand the question to call for a transcript from the town assessor's books. His attorney testified that Connery made similar statements to Manning, and told him that he thought the question meant to ask the present value of the property. Whether this story was probable or improbable, Dr. Seelye, the president of the savings bank, seems to have taken a somewhat similar view of Connery's state of mind, and to have communicated it to the defendant, Manning, before the original criminal proceedings were begun. He testifies that Manning came to him to make inquiries, and that he told Manning that Connery was a worthy man; that he was not a business man at all, did not know how to do business, and did not know about the assessment valuation at all; that that was a great mystery to him; that he must have assessed the valuation of his property as he supposed the bank valuation was assessed; that he did not know that the property or real estate in the town was assessed by assessors appointed for that purpose; and that Mr. Connery was an innocent man.
It may be that the defendant had reason to believe the plaintiff less innocent than the president of the savings bank thought. But the foregoing testimony, coupled with the defendant's admission that probably he would not have instituted the prosecution if he had got his money, and his attorney's testimony that, after the interview with Dr. Seelye, he said there might be a mistake as to the assessed valuation presents the question whether, when he made the complaint, the defendant believed that the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Higgins v. Pratt
...and there is some evidence which casts doubt on whether he ‘was honestly following advice honestly asked.’ See Connery v. Manning, 163 Mass. 44, 47, 39 N.E. 558. So it was likewise for the jury to say whether the defendant ‘acted bona fide in regard to the consulting of counsel and believed......
-
Higgins v. Pratt
... ... which casts doubt on whether he "was honestly following ... advice honestly asked." See Connery v. Manning, ... 163 Mass. 44 , 47. So it was likewise for the jury to say ... whether the defendant "acted bona fide in regard to the ... ...
-
Jackson v. Knowlton
...138 Mass. 114; Langford v. Railroad Co., 144 Mass. 431, 11 N.E. 697; Everett v. Henderson, 146 Mass. 89, 93, 14 N.E. 932; Connery v. Manning, 163 Mass. 44, 39 N.E. 558; Morrow v. Manufacturing Co., 165 Mass. 349, 43 N.E. 105. When, therefore, it was said by Chief Justice Morton, in Legallee......
-
Keefe v. Johnson
...part of probable cause. Bacon v. Towne, 4 Cush. 217, 239;Krulevitz v. Eastern Railroad, 140 Mass. 573, 5 N.E. 500;Connery v. Manning, 163 Mass. 44, 39 N.E. 558. But belief in this connection must mean something short of certainty. Absolute certainty is not required even for a conviction on ......