Feld v. Loftis

• Decision Date: 23 April 1909
• Citation: 240 Ill. 105,88 N.E. 281
• Parties: FELD v. LOFTIS et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

240 Ill. 105

88 N.E. 281

FELD

v.LOFTIS et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 23, 1909.

Error to Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; John Gibbons, Judge.

Action by Theresa Feld against S. T. A. Loftis and another. A judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the Appellate Court (140 Ill. App. 530), and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.James R. Ward, for plaintiff in error.

Mayer, Meyer & Austrian, for defendants in error.

DUNN, J.

This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse a judgment of the Appellate Court reversing a judgment of the circuit court of Cook county for $1,500, recovered by the plaintiff in error against defendants in error for false imprisonment.

The declaration consisted of three counts, each alleging that the defendants caused the plaintiff to be seized and imprisoned for 24 hours against her will and contrary to law. The last two counts averred the imprisonment to have been in the county jail of Cook county and alleged special grounds of damage. Besides the general issue the defendants filed pleas justifying the imprisonment under an execution against the body, issued upon a judgment which the defendants had recovered against the plaintiff before a justice of the peace. Two replications were filed, one being nul tiel record but concluding to the country; the other what is called a replication de injuria, but concluding with a verification. The latter set up proceedings in habeas corpus resulting in the discharge of the plaintiff from the imprisonment complained of. The defendant did not join issue upon, demur, or rejoin to either replication; but both parties, in the trial court and here, have treated the replications as traversed. Various questions having reference to the condition of the pleadings have been discussed which we do not regard as material to the decision of the case.

The Appellate Court did not remand the cause and recited in its judgment the following finding of facts, viz.: ‘That the plaintiffs in error were not guilty, either as principals, participants, or assistants, in the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant in error. Their only connection with the same was as plaintiffs in a suit before a justice of the peace, in which an execution against the body of the defendant in error was issued to and served by a constable of the county of Cook. The process thus issuing furnished a justification of the arrest and imprisonment.’ The ultimate fact in this finding is that the defendants had no connection with the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff except as plaintiffs in the action before the justice of the peace in which the execution against the body issued. As such plaintiffs they had the right to enforce the judgment by legal process, and the finding that they did no more than that is such a finding as exonerates them from liability in this case. Imprisonment under legal process of a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter cannot be made the basis of an action for false imprisonment. When a justice of the peace is applied to for a writ, where he has general jurisdiction of the subject-matter, he has authority to act officially and decide upon the sufficiency of the affidavit. If he errs in his judgment as to its sufficiency and issues a writ which was not authorized in the particular case, the plaintiff is not responsible for the error. Process, under such circumstances, constitutes full justification, not only of the officer who serves the process, but of the magistrate who issues it and of the party or complainant at whose suit it is issued. Bassett v. Bratton, 86 Ill. 152;Outlaw v. Davis, 27 Ill. 467;Von Kettler v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109;Booth v. Rees, 26 Ill. 45;Barker v. Stetson, 7 Gray (Mass.) 53, 66 Am. Dec. 457;Langford v. Boston & Maine Railroad Co., 144 Mass. 431, 11 N. E. 697;Gifford v. Wiggins, 50 Minn. 401, 52 N. W. 904,18 L. R. A. 356;Murphy v. Walters, 34 Mich. 180;Rush v. Buckley, 100 Me. 322, 61 Atl. 774,70 L. R. A. 464. The declaration in this case counts only upon an arrest and imprisonment without authority of law. To such a complaint the judgment and process of the court is a complete answer. If the suing out of the process was malicious and without right, the defendants would be answerable for such action; but that is not the case made by the declaration.

Plaintiff assigned cross-errors in the Appellate Court, and insists that the transcript of the proceedings before the justice of the peace was improperly admitted in evidence. The record shows that no objection was made to the introduction of the transcript. The only objection made to the execution was that sufficient foundation was not laid, without specifying anything supposed to be lacking. It is too late now to object to the certificate to the transcript for lack of a seal.

It is urged that the transcript cannot be considered as tending to prove the pleas because it fails to show that the justice of the peace had jurisdiction in the proceedings before him. The transcript shows an action of replevin begun against Mrs. Jos. J. Feld by the filing of an affidavit of the plaintiffs, the issue of the writ, the return of personal service on the defendant, the goods mentioned in the writ not being found, a continuance of the case, appearance by plaintiffs only, issue of venire at plaintiffs' request, trial by jury, verdict, and judgment against defen...