Eichengreen v. Louisville & N. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 February 1896
• Citation: 34 S.W. 219,96 Tenn. 229
• Parties: EICHENGREEN v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

34 S.W. 219

96 Tenn. 229

EICHENGREEN v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 18, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Sumner county; A. H. Munford, Judge.

Action by Louis Eichengreen against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for false imprisonment. Plaintiff had judgment for $1, and appeals. Reversed.

J. W Blackmore, G. W. Boddie, and S. F. Wilson, for appellant.

J. J Turner and Dismukes & Seay, for appellee.

McALISTER J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant company in the circuit court of Sumner county to recover damages for an alleged false imprisonment. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $1. The plaintiff appealed, and has assigned errors.

The plaintiff, Eichengreen, was a drummer, representing a Philadelphia firm engaged in the manufacture of soaps. On reaching the town of Gallatin, Sunday evening, August 9 1891, he was arrested by two policemen, as he stepped from the train of defendant company. The arrest was made in pursuance of a telegram, sent from Bowling Green, by one W J. Stewart, who was in the employment of defendant in the capacity of a special agent or detective. The record discloses that the plaintiff, Eichengreen, had for several days been in Bowling Green, Ky., and, desiring to go to Gallatin, Tenn., he went to the railroad ticket office to purchase a ticket. In payment of his ticket he handed the agent a $5 bill, which the latter pronounced counterfeit. Eichengreen explained that he had received the bill from one of the banks in Bowling Green, and remarked to the agent, "You are off." He then handed the agent a $20 bill and received his change. Stewart, the special agent or detective of the company, claims that he was standing near, and overheard the conversation between the plaintiff and the ticket agent at Bowling Green, that the plaintiff was in company with one Newmark, and that plaintiff, Newmark, and himself all boarded the train at Bowling Green, going south. Stewart further stated that, on the train, the plaintiff and Newmark talked a good deal in a foreign language, that they exchanged coats, and that one of them asked him (Stewart) if there was not a train out of Gallatin that night about 10 o'clock. Stewart testified that these facts aroused his suspicions, and he came to the conclusion these men were crooks. He thereupon sent to the telegraph operator at Gallatin the following dispatch: "Tell your police authorities to meet me at the depot. A man on train with counterfeit money going to get off at your station. Tried to pass $5 of it at Bowling Green. [Signed] W. J. Stewart." As already stated, on the arrival of the train at Gallatin, Eichengreen and his companion, Newmark, were both arrested. It was claimed by plaintiff that they were pointed out by Stewart and the conductor of the train to the policemen who made the arrest. The prisoners were both taken to the city workhouse where Newmark was released upon assurances from Eichengreen that the former had nothing to do with the matter, and if any one was guilty of attempting to pass counterfeit money, he was the man. Eichengreen, after much trouble, and possibly two hours' detention, was permitted to deposit his watch and money with the city marshal as security for his appearance at the police court the following morning. It appears that no warrant was sworn out against the defendant, and, there being no proof against him, he was, the next day, discharged. Thereupon the plaintiff commenced this suit against the company for damages for false imprisonment. On the trial, it was shown that the $5 bill Eichengreen attempted to pass at Bowling, Green was counterfeit, but the latter testified that he had no knowledge of the counterfeit,-explaining that, while in Bowling Green, he had boarded with one McLure; that he (Eichengreen) drew a draft on his house in Philadelphia for $50, and McLure had it cashed for him at a bank in Bowling Green; that, among the bills paid McLure by the bank, and turned over by the latter to the plaintiff, was the $5 bill in question. Stewart, the special agent or detective of the company, stated, on the trial, that he heard Eichengreen, the plaintiff, tell the ticket agent at Bowling Green, when the bill was refused, that he had gotten it from one of the banks at Bowling Green. It was insisted on behalf of the company that the arrest of plaintiff was not procured by Stewart or any employé of the company; but, if it was, such act was not within the apparent or real scope of the agent's authority, and the company is not liable. In respect of the first proposition, there was evidence tending to show that, on the arrival of the train at Gallatin, the conductor of the train pointed out the plaintiff to the policeman, who immediately arrested him. About this time, Stewart, the detective of the company, came up and said to the policeman: "Why have you not arrested the other one? There are two of them." And, pointing to Newmark, the policeman arrested him. It further appears that Stewart, after the arrest of these parties at the depot, Sunday evening, proceeded on his way to Nashville, and sent back the following telegram to the operator at Gallatin, viz.: "Let me know what the officers found on those fellows. They tried to pass $20 at Louisville yesterday. They are good stock, if the officers work it. They intended to work the town tonight and get out on first train. Stewart." The record shows that Stewart also returned to Gallatin the next morning to learn, as he claims, whether any counterfeit money had been found on the prisoners. There was other evidence tending to show Stewart's complicity in the arrest of the plaintiff. On the subject of Stewart's authority to make arrests, it was shown on the trial that he was the chief of special agents or detectives employed by the company. These detectives were employed for the purpose of protecting the property of the company, and of ferreting out and prosecuting parties guilty of crimes against the company. Stewart, it seems, had general instructions from the officers of the company not to make arrests without first consulting the local attorneys of the road. It was shown, however, that he was authorized to make arrests when the proof against the party was clear, and there was not time to consult local counsel, lest the criminal might escape. The plaintiff, who was following the business of a drummer, had visited Gallatin on previous occasions, and was, as already stated, well known to some of the merchants of that city, and by them and others proved an excellent character on the trial below. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1. The result of the verdict is that the plaintiff is onerated with the payment of a heavy bill of costs, since, by the terms of our statute, the plaintiff in an action for false imprisonment recovers no more costs than damages, unless his recovery exceeds the sum of $5. This verdict practically absolves the company from all liability, and upon this basis the assignments of error will be considered.

The first assignment is that the court erred in refusing plaintiff's fourth request, viz.: "If you find, from the proof, that the plaintiff was...