King v. Weed
| Citation | 51 N.W. 1011,81 Wis. 578 |
| Parties | KING v. WEED ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 22 March 1892 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Waupaca county; CHARLES M. WEBB, Judge.
Action by E. A. King against F. H. Johnston and F. C. Weed. Defendants had judgment on demurrer, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by CASSODAY, J.:
The complaint alleges, in effect, that the plaintiff was, November 6, 1890, the lessee of certain rooms in Smith's block in New London, wherein the New London Times was published, and entitled to the possession thereof, that on that day, at New London, the defendants wrongfully, maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause procured a warrant, charging the plaintiff with having committed the crime of burglary, by breaking and entering said office on the day named; that said warrant was served by some person unknown to the plaintiff, who took him into custody under the same, aided and assisted by the defendants; that said arrest was made in an insolent and insulting manner, on a passenger train, and in the presence of passengers with whom the plaintiff was acquainted; that the plaintiff was taken from said car by an unknown person, claiming to be a deputy-sheriff, and the said defendants, and marched through the public streets to the office of the justice issuing said warrant; that since said time the defendants have not proceeded to try the plaintiff on said charge. The defendant Weed demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. From an order refusing to strike out such demurrer as frivolous the plaintiff brings this appeal.Charles D. Smith, for appellant.
F. C. Weed, for respondents.
CASSODAY, J., ( after stating the facts.)
The complaint does not state a cause of action for false imprisonment, since it fails to allege facts showing that the arrest was extrajudicial, or without legal process. Murphy v. Martin, 58 Wis. 276, 16 N. W. Rep. 603;Gelzenleuchter v. Niemeyer, 64 Wis. 321, 25 N. W. Rep. 442. The complaint does not state a cause of action for malicious prosecution, since it fails to allege facts showing that the criminal action had been determined. Wood worth v. Mills, 61 Wis. 44, 20 N. W. Rep. 728;West v. Hayes, 104 Ind. 251, 3 N. E. Rep. 932; Lowe v. Wartman, 47 N. J. Law, 413, 1 Atl. Rep. 489;Com. v. McClusky, 151 Mass. 488, 25 N. E. Rep. 72; 14 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, 28, 42, and cases there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaeppler v. Red River Valley National Bank
...... cause, does not constitute a part of the cause of action. Murphy v. Martin, 16 N.W. 603; King v. Weed, 51 N.W. 1011; Whitten v. Bennet, 86 F. 405. The process upon which plaintiff was arrested was. regular and valid. Even slight and ......
-
Kredit v. Ryan
...goes only to the motive which prompted the issuance of the commitment, not to the validity or invalidity of the commitment. King v. Johnston, 81 Wis. 578, 51 NW 1011. If the commitment was a valid one, the allegation that it was wrongfully and maliciously issued was unimportant in an action......
-
Kredit v. Ryan
...... prompted the issuance of the commitment, not to the validity. or invalidity of the commitment. King v. Johnston, 81 Wis. 578, 51 N.W. 1011. If the commitment was a valid one, the. allegation that it was wrongfully and maliciously issued was. ......
-
Bergeron v. Peyton
...was false imprisonment. Murphy v. Martin, 58 Wis. 276, 16 N. W. 603;Gelzenleuchter v. Niemeyer, 64 Wis. 321, 25 N. W. 442;King v. Johnston, 81 Wis. 578, 51 N. W. 1011. The question recurs whether such imprisonment without process was justifiable. Manifestly, it devolved upon the defendants,......