Knight v. Baker
| Decision Date | 30 March 1926 |
| Citation | 244 P. 543,117 Or. 492 |
| Parties | KNIGHT v. BAKER. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Bank.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Klamath County; A. L. Leavitt, Judge.
Action by Louis Knight against F. A. Baker. From a judgment of dismissal on demurrer to complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
This is an action for damages for false imprisonment. A demurrer on the ground that the amended complaint does not state sufficient facts was sustained. The plaintiff stood upon said complaint, whereupon his case was dismissed, and judgment entered for costs and disbursements in favor of the defendant, from which this appeal is taken. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Edward B. Ashurst, of Klamath Falls, for appellant.
Wilson S. Wiley, of Klamath Falls, for respondent.
It appears from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff was imprisoned in the city jail at Klamath Falls by order of the defendant for 17 days without any commitment, warrant, or other process from any court, and kept there without an examination or hearing in any court, without being informed of his rights, and without any charge of any kind having been filed against him.
The first reason assigned by the defendant why the complaint does not state sufficient facts is that it states only conclusions of law. The complaint alleges that the defendant caused the arrest of the plaintiff, took plaintiff into custody compelled him by violence and force to go from Klamath Agency to Klamath Falls, willfully and unlawfully detained and imprisoned him, and restrained him of his liberty and freedom for the period of 17 days by imprisoning him in the city jail of Klamath Falls. These are statements of fact. They are not mere conclusions. The complaint does not charge the defendant with having unlawfully arrested plaintiff, but complains because of his unlawful and wrongful imprisonment for 17 days. Facts are alleged showing the detention to have been unlawful.
Defendant next argues that, because there is nothing in the complaint filed to indicate that the appellant, who is plaintiff, was committing, or attempting to commit, any infraction of the law, it is thereby fatally defective. If the plaintiff was violating the law, he might have been lawfully arrested by the defendant. It would be only an aggravation of the trespass against plaintiff to have arrested him without any cause. But the gravamen of the complaint is that he was unlawfully and wrongfully imprisoned, regardless of whether or not he may have been guilty of some breach of law. 25 C.J 492, 493, § 62.
In this same connection the defendant seems to think the plaintiff should have alleged that he demanded from the defendant a warrant authorizing his arrest and the absence of an allegation of that kind renders the complaint demurrable. That is no part of plaintiff's case. If the plaintiff violated the law, and the defendant was justified in arresting and imprisoning the plaintiff, he should plead.
"Plaintiff is not bound to anticipate and negative all of the facts which may constitute a defense to his cause of action, and if matters in justification of an alleged illegal arrest exist they must be affirmatively shown by defendant and not negatived by plaintiff in his complaint." 25 C.J. 531, § 123.
Again defendant says in his brief:
"Appellant alleges that no legal commitment was issued but are there no other lawful means of holding a man in prison?"
No authority has been cited by defend ant that would justify a man being imprisoned and held there for 17 days without a commitment, warrant, or some other legal process. 25 C.J. 491, § 61.
5 Encyclopædia of Evidence, 733, § 2.
The complaint, however, goes considerably farther and alleges that the plaintiff was detained in jail for 17 days without any charge having been filed against him, or any investigation made of any crime, and without informing him of his rights. A citizen cannot be so deprived of his liberty lawfully. One who interferes with another's liberty of locomotion does so at his peril. 25 C.J. 448, § 5.
Defendant says, again, it is not alleged that the respondent was the jailer of the city jail of Klamath Falls. That was not a necessary allegation. The complaint does allege that the defendant caused him to be arrested, took him into custody and compelled him by force and violence to accompany the defendant and another person to Klamath Falls, and there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stone v. Finnerty
...reasonably result in the arrest of the plaintiff, could subject the defendant to liability for false imprisonment); Knight v. Baker, 117 Or. 492, 244 P. 543 (1926) (holding an Indian agent liable for false imprisonment because he instigated the detention of the plaintiff for 17 days without......
-
Cervantez v. J. C. Penney Co., Inc.
...(See People v. Agnew, supra, 16 Cal.2d 655, 107 P.2d 601; Kaufman v. Brown, supra, 93 Cal.App.2d 508, 209 P.2d 156; Knight v. Baker (1926) 117 Or. 492, 244 P. 543.) The presumption of unlawfulness of a warrantless arrest is thus designed to facilitate the determination of the false imprison......
-
Lewis v. Farmer Jack Div., Inc.
...prosecution, is liable; and this rule applies equally whether he does the act himself or procures another to do it' ". Knight v. Baker, 117 Or. 492, 497, 244 P. 543 (1926).7 See 32 Am.Jur.2d, False Imprisonment, Sec. 45, pp. 100-101. See, e.g., (Blue) Star Service, Inc. v. McCurdy, 36 Tenn.......
-
Kraft v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
...for the arrest. Brown v. Meier & Frank Co., 160 Or. 608, 86 P.2d 79; Christ v. McDonald, 152 Or. 494, 52 P.2d 655; Knight v. Baker, 117 Or. 492, 244 P. 543. We believe, however, that the affirmative matter pleaded in the answer, especially when not moved against, was sufficient to raise the......