Hildebrand v. McCrum

• Decision Date: 20 March 1885
• Docket Number: 11,867
• Citation: 101 Ind. 61
• Parties: Hildebrand et al. v. McCrum
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

101 Ind. 61

Hildebrand et al. v. McCrum

No. 11,867

Supreme Court of Indiana

March 20, 1885

From the Huntington Circuit Court.

J. L Farrar and L. P. Milligan, for appellants.

J. C Branyan, M. L. Spencer, R. A. Kaufman, W. A. Branyan, B. M Cobb and C. W. Watkins, for appellee.

OPINION

Best, C.

This action was brought by the appellee against the appellants for false imprisonment.

The second paragraph of the complaint, upon which the cause was tried, averred, in substance, that the appellants, John H., George W., William W., Henry, Nancy and Elizabeth Hildebrand and Marshall M. Tidsworth, unlawfully conspired together for the purpose of wrongfully compelling the appellee to admit a promise of marriage with Elizabeth Hildebrand, and thus to extort from him one thousand dollars as damages for breach of such promise; that in pursuance of such conspiracy two of the appellants, brothers of said Elizabeth, called upon the appellee at his house at 10 o'clock p. m. of the 13th day of January, 1883, and informed him that their sister desired to see him at once at their house; that, not suspecting their purpose, he accompanied them to their house, and as soon as he entered the house they locked the doors upon him, called from an adjoining apartment their confederates, and at once charged him with having made and violated such promise, and threatened him with great personal violence, unless he admitted such promise, and would then agree to pay as damages for the breach of such promise the sum of one thousand dollars; that while one of said appellants had a club drawn over him, and another a pistol drawn upon him, and while he was so imprisoned as aforesaid, he was compelled to and did admit the making of such promise, and then agreed to fulfil the same on the succeeding Monday; that his admission and promise were enforced from him by such threats while he was so imprisoned, all of which was without his consent and to his damage, etc.

This paragraph was clearly sufficient as charging false imprisonment.

The fourth paragraph of the answer alleged, in substance, that Elizabeth Hildebrand instituted an action in the Huntington Circuit Court against the appellee for breach of such marriage contract, and in such case the matters and things in the complaint mentioned were therein fully adjudicated and determined.

This paragraph was insufficient, for the reason that the matters and things in the complaint mentioned could not have been adjudicated in such action. They did not constitute a defence, nor could they have been made available by any mode of pleading. If the plaintiff in such proceeding, in support of her cause of action, relied upon the admission thus alleged to have been obtained, the circumstances under which it was made were admissible in evidence for the purpose of destroying its force. This was the only purpose for which the appellee could employ them, and as he could not recover damages in such action for the alleged wrong, nor recoup them from any damages to which the plaintiff may have been entitled for breach of the alleged agreement, the mere admission of them in evidence did not amount to an adjudication of the alleged wrong.

In addition to this the pleader embraced in this paragraph of answer all the pleadings in such action, and as no defence was interposed other than the general denial, it thus appears that no such matters were in fact involved in the issues. The paragraph was, therefore, insufficient.

The demurrer to this paragraph alleged that the same did not "state facts sufficient to constitute a bar to the plaintiff's complaint," and the...