Davis v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 05 March 1894
• Citation: 40 S.C. 507,19 S.E. 138
• Parties: DAVIS v. SANDERS, Sheriff, et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

19 S.E. 138

40 S.C. 507

DAVIS

v.SANDERS, Sheriff, et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 5, 1894.

False Imprisonment—Wakkant por Arrest— Insufficiency—Signature op Justice.

A warrant, which was not subscribed by the issuing officer, was insufficient to justify an arrest, though his name was written in the body and indorsed on the back of the warrant.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Sumter county; J. H. Hudson, Judge.

Action by H. Murray Davis against Marion Sanders, sheriff, and William T. Hurst, deputy sheriff, for false imprisonment. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Lee & Moise, for appellant

R. O. Purdy, for respondents.

McIVER, C. J. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for false Imprisonment The facts do not seem to have been disputed, and are as follows: A paper purporting to be a warrant was delivered to the defendant Sanders, as sheriff, by a trial justice, commanding him to arrest the plaintiff under a charge, for resisting an officer In the execution of a warrant to enforce an agricultural lien, which paper was deliveredby the sheriff to his deputy, the codefend-ant, Hurst, to be executed, and the plaintiff was by him arrested. But when the plaintiff was brought to the courthouse, it was for the first time discovered that the alleged warrant under which the arrest was made was not signed by the trial justice in the usual form, nor was it dated in the attesting clause, the date not having been filled in at the place left for that purpose. As soon as this discovery was made, the sheriff released the plaintiff from arrest, and he returned to his home. The paper under which the arrest was made was the usual printed blank form, of which the following is a copy, after the words which are in italics had been inserted by the trial Justice in his own handwriting, to wit:

"The State of South Carolina, County of Sumter. By C. C. Manning, Trial Justice in and for the said County and the said State. To any Lawful Constable, or the Sheriff of said County. Whereas complaint upon oath has been made unto me by 1. 8. Arrants that at the farm of Murray Davis, in the county and state aforesaid, on the 6th and the 18th days of January, 1893, one Murray Davis and Lafayette Davit and Joshua Davis did resist I. 8. Arrants, lawful constable of I. L. Parrott, a duly-qualified trial justice for said county and state, in the execution of a certain warrant of attachment against the crops of said Murray Davis on his farm in said county and state, duly issued under the hand and seal of said trial justice: These are therefore to command you to apprehend the said defendants, and bring them before me, to be dealt with according to law Given under my hand

and seal the ——day of ——, one thousand

eight hundred and ——.

" ——, Trial Justice. [L S.]"

This paper was then folded, and indorsed as follows:

"The State of South Carolina, County of Sumter. The State vs. Murray Davis, Lafayette Davis, Joshua Davis. Arrest Warrant. Offense, Resisting an Officer.

" C. C. Manning, Trial Justice.

"Date: Jan. 27th, 1893. Officer: Sheriff."

The defendants, In their answer, pleaded justification, relying on the paper copied above as their authority for making the arrest.

The circuit judge charged the jury that, while it had been decided long ago (State v. Vaughn, Harp. 313) that a warrant need not be under seal, yet it must be in writing, and signed by the officer issuing; but he instructed the jury that the warrant set up in this case, having the name of the trial justice written by himself in the body of the warrant and in the indorsement made thereon, was a sufficient signing to make it a legal warrant, and sufficient to justify the defendants in making the arrest, and he therefore directed a verdict in favor of defendants. Prom the judgment entered upon such ver dict the plaintiff appeals upon the several grounds set out in the record, which really make the single question whether there was error in the instruction...