Hobbs v. Rat

• Decision Date: 26 November 1892
• Citation: 25 A. 694,18 R.I. 84
• Parties: HOBBS v. RAT.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

25 A. 694

18 R.I. 84

HOBBS

v. RAT.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Nov. 26, 1892.

Trespass on the case by Lemuel R. Hobbs against Frederick A. Ray for false imprisonment. On demurrer to the declaration, and also on demurrer to a plea in abatement. Demurrer to declaration sustained, and plea in abatement overruled.

John D. Thurston and George A. Littlefield, for plaintiff.

Warren R. Perce, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. We think the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration should be sustained. The facts set out in the writ and declaration show a case for malicious prosecution, and not for false imprisonment; and these actions are quite distinct and different from each other. An action of trespass for false imprisonment lies for an arrest, or some other similar act of the defendant, "which," as is said, "upon the stating of it, is manifestly illegal;" while malicious prosecution, on the contrary, lies for a prosecution which, upon the stating of it, is manifestly legal. Johnstone v. Sutton, 1 Term R. 510, 544. The declaration in the case at bar shows that the arrest complained of was made under lawful process, although wrongfully obtained. There was, therefore, no false imprisonment, the imprisonment being by lawful authority. Nebenzahl v. Townsend, 61 How. Pr. 353, 356. Imprisonment caused by a malicious prosecution is not false, unless without legal process or extrajudicial. Murphy v. Martin, 58 Wis. 276, 16 N. W. Rep. 603; Colter v. Lower, 35 Ind. 285; 7 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, 663, 664, and cases cited. See, also, Turpen v. Remy, 3 Blackf. 210; Mitchell v. State, 12 Ark. 50, and cases cited; 1 Chitty, Pl. *133, *167. The gravamen of the offense of false imprisonment...