Culver v. Burnside

• Decision Date: 18 October 1920
• Citation: 179 N.W. 490,43 S.D. 398
• Parties: CULVER v. BURNSIDE et al.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

43 S.D. 398

179 N.W. 490

CULVER

v.BURNSIDE et al.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Oct. 18, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County; John T. Medin, Judge.

Action by J. G. Culver against George W. Burnside, and others. Judgment for plaintiff on demurrer, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.Parliman & Parliman, of Sioux Falls, for appellants.

George J. Danforth, of Sioux Falls, for respondent.

McCOY, P. J.

For cause of action plaintiff alleged that on the 27th day of November at the city of Sioux Falls the defendant unlawfully and maliciously and with intent to injure the plaintiff, by force compelled the plaintiff to go with them to the police station and city jail, and then and there detained and restrained him of his liberty for the space of one hour without any right or authority so to do, and against the will of plaintiff, and then there unlawfully and maliciously and with intent to injure the plaintiff caused notice of such detention and arrest to be widely published in the Sioux Falls Press and other newspapers, for the purpose of injuring plaintiff in his reputation and credit, all to plaintiff's damage, etc. To this complaint the defendants demurred on the ground: First, that there is a defect of parties defendant, in that it is alleged that defendants jointly did the acts complained of, said acts being acts which could not be committed jointly, and there is no allegation of conspiracy on the part of defendants, and for these reasons there is a defect of parties defendant; second, that said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these defendants, for the reason that there are no facts alleged at all that show that defendants did anything to plaintiff which they were not entitled to do, and that such acts, which it is alleged they did, would not constitute a breach of duty on the part of defendants to the plaintiff, and there are no facts constituting damage alleged in said complaint; and, third, that several causes of action have been improperly united in that plaintiff's said complaint attempts to set forth facts constituting false arrest, false imprisonment, libel and slander, and plaintiff has joined all of said causes of action into one cause of action, instead of having each separate as provided by law, and hence there are several causes of action improperly united. From an order overruling said demurrer the defendants appeal, assigning as error the overruling and denying of...