Frost v. American Sur. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1914
• Parties: FROST v. AMERICAN SURETY CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

217 Mass. 294

104 N.E. 750

FROST v. AMERICAN SURETY CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 31, 1914

COUNSEL

Samuel L. Bailen and Frank Leveroni, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

Herbert L. Baker and Rufus B. Skinner, both of Boston, for defendant.

OPINION

BRALEY J.

The defendant is the surety on a bond given under R. L. c. 108, § 36, by a licensed private detective, and judgment having been obtained against the principal for trespass, assault and slander, the bond has been put in suit for the benefit of the plaintiff, the judgment creditor.

The first statutory reference to private detectives appears in St. 1879, c. 305, §§ 7, 8, entitled 'An act to constitute a district police, and to abolish the state detective force,' re-enacted without change in Pub. St. c. 103, §§ 7, 8, and in R. L. c. 108, §§ 36, 37. See Com. v Connolly, 97 Mass. 591.

It is made a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, for any citizen to engage in the general business of a private detective without having obtained a license from the public authorities authorized to grant it. While the statute expressly provides that the licensee shall not be clothed with the power and authority of constables or police officers, the purpose for which the license is granted is to enable him 'to act as a private detective for the detection, prevention and punishment of crime.'

It is for the licensing board to pass upon the competency and integrity of the applicant and while by the proviso he is not ranked with public officials intrusted with the conservation of the public peace, yet in the accepted meaning of the words, he is designated as a person unofficially engaged in obtaining secret information for the use and benefit of those who choose to employ him and to pay his compensation. State v. Benett, 102 Mo. 356, 14 S.W. 865, 10 L. R A. 717. The license enables him to engage in a business which, if unlicensed, in prohibited, and as a precedent condition to granting the license, a bond with sureties to be approved by the licensing board, is required running to the treasurer of the municipality, as a condition that the licensee will properly discharge 'the services he may perform by virtue of such license.'

The 'services' obviously are the 'services rendered in the detection, prevention and punishment of crime under his employment by private persons who generally desire to obtain evidence...