Connolly v. Thurber-Whyland Co.

• Decision Date: 06 November 1893
• Citation: 18 S.E. 1004,92 Ga. 651
• Parties: CONNOLLY v. THURBER-WHYLAND CO. et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

18 S.E. 1004

92 Ga. 651

CONNOLLY v. THURBER-WHYLAND CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 6, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

1. For reasons of public policy, neither the chief nor any member of the municipal police of a city or town is subject to garnishment for effects which come to his hands by color of his official authority, and without the consent of the owner whether he obtains them lawfully or unlawfully.

2. The pendency of the garnishments against the plaintiff presenting no legal reason for enjoining the action brought against him by Cooper to recover the property taken from him, and it appearing from the pleadings and evidence submitted to the judge below that the plaintiff had a complete and perfect defense by answer to each of the several garnishments, there was no error in denying the prayers for injunction and interpleader.

Error from superior court, Fulton county; M. J. Clarke, Judge.

Petitior by A. B. Connolly against the Thurber-Whyland Company and others for an injunction and other relief. There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

From the bill of exceptions, it appears that one George Cooper having been arrested by a policeman of the city of Atlanta on the charge of violating an ordinance, by being drunk and disorderly, was brought to the station house for keeping until his trial or release on bail; and, in accordance with the law in such case, the valuables on such person were taken in charge by the station-house keeper for safe-keeping until they should be restored to him. The articles were delivered by the station-house keeper to plaintiff, who received them as chief of police. The articles so taken from Cooper and delivered to plaintiff consisted of $421.95 in money, a promissory note for $100, a purse, a pistol, and a watch. Afterwards, and while the articles so taken from Cooper were in plaintiff's possession as chief of police, defendants herein other than Cooper, brought separate civil actions against Cooper, as principal defendant, and plaintiff herein as garnishee. Plaintiff having refused to deliver up the articles on demand, Cooper brought an action against plaintiff for conversion. The action herein was then brought by plaintiff to restrain the action by Cooper, and to require the other defendants to interplead for the determination of the rights of the parties to the property in plaintiff's hands taken from Cooper. Plaintiff's action was dismissed on the ground that he was not liable as garnishee.

J. A. Anderson and Fulton Colville, for plaintiff in error.

Culberson & Hunt, Haygood, Lovett & Plyer, Bigby, Reed, Berry & Foote, H. M. Patty, Mayson & Hill, and J. W. Cox, for defendants in error.

LUMPKIN J.

1. It can scarcely be doubted that, where one charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct is arrested by a policeman in a city, it is the duty of the officer, if the prisoner is so intoxicated as to be incapable of properly caring for money or other valuables on his person, to take possession of the same, for safe-keeping, and for the purpose of restoring them to the owner upon or before his discharge from custody. This duty might also devolve upon the arresting officer, in some cases, when the prisoner was not intoxicated, as, for instance, when he was about to be confined among other prisoners who might steal from him the articles in question. In the view we take of the law applicable to the case before us, however, it is entirely immaterial whether Cooper was or was not intoxicated, or whether he was deprived of his money and other valuables lawfully or unlawfully. In neither event was the...