Fellows v. Goodman
| Decision Date | 31 October 1871 |
| Citation | 49 Mo. 62 |
| Parties | SAMUEL FELLOWS, Plaintiff in Error, v. CHARLES GOODMAN, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Shelby Circuit Court.
James Carr, for plaintiff in error.
The warrant did not show any criminal offense on its face. The defendant and all parties concerned in arresting plaintiff under said warrant were trespassers, and guilty of false imprisonment in restraining plaintiff of his liberty without any legal warrant. (Maher v. Ashmead, 6 Casey, 344; Baird v. Householder, 8 id. 168.)
Shafer & York, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff prosecuted the defendant for false improsonment, and upon the trial showed that he and others were sent to Shelbina by the officers of the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company, to remove a section-house belonging to the company. While engaged in its removal they were arrested under criminal process, by procurement and upon affidavit of defendant, for maliciously injuring his house and building; were forcibly taken before a magistrate, and held in custody for some four hours; were then permitted to leave upon promise to appear again before him at the same place at a future day to which the hearing of the cause was adjourned. They returned at the appointed time, and were told by the constable that the justice was holding the court some four miles away, but having no means of transportation they declined to walk, and defendant's attorney then told them, in his presence, that they might go about their business; that they did not wish to prosecute them further; that they had got their hands tied--had sued out an injunction restraining the company from removing the section-house. They went away, and the justice entered on his docket that they failed to appear. After showing these facts, with the proper exhibits of the sham proceedings before the justice, the court instructed the jury that the plaintiff had failed to make a case, and under this instruction they found for defendant.
It is evident that the whole proceeding before the justice was a sham; that it was instituted to stop the removal of the building until the defendant should be able to prevent it by legal process. It was not a voluntary appearance, for when the defendant and his companions refused to go before a magistrate they were surrounded by a large and noisy posse, as the crowd was called, and taken there against their will. The law will not permit criminal process to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stobie
...the Supreme Court. Even more striking instances of exceptions to the general rule are to be found in the decisions in this state. Fellows v. Goodman, 49 Mo. 62, was an action for false imprisonment. The plaintiff, with others, was engaged in taking down and removing a house. The defendant h......
-
Hanser v. Bieber
...his captor, it is an arrest such as is contemplated to authorize an action for false imprisonment. Ahern v. Collins, 39 Mo. 146; Fellows v. Goodman, 49 Mo. 62; Dunlevy v. Wolferman, 106 Mo. App. loc. cit. 51, 79 S. W. 1165. We said in Tiede v. Fuhr, supra, that the character of the restrain......
-
The State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie
...arresting criminals and to enable such criminals to continue in the commission of felonies without interference or molestation. Fellows v. Goodman, 49 Mo. 62; Dougherty v. Snider, 97 Mo.App. 501. (2) The writ prohibition is as available to keep a court within the limits of its rightful powe......
-
Hanser v. Bieber
...his captor, it is an arrest such as is contemplated to authorize an action for false imprisonment. [Ahern v. Collins, 39 Mo. 145; Fellows v. Goodman, 49 Mo. 62; Dunlevy Wolferman, 106 Mo.App. 46, 79 S.W. 1165.] We said in Tiede v. Fuhr, supra, that the character of the restraint, however co......