Ky. Bankers Ass'n v. Cassady
| Decision Date | 17 March 1936 |
| Citation | 264 Ky. 351 |
| Parties | Kentucky Bankers Ass'n et al. v. Cassady. Froh et al. v. Cassady et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
6. Appeal and Error. — Findings of trial judge sitting without jury are entitled to weight required to be given to verdict of properly instructed jury.
7. Appeal and Error. — Finding of facts of circuit court sitting without jury will not be disturbed on appeal, where appellate court entertains only a doubt as to propriety or correctness of his finding.
8. Rewards. — Evidence held to sustain judgment awarding sheriff reward offered for arrest and conviction of bank robber.
Appeal from Oldham Circuit Court.
FRANKLIN S. FITCH, LEO CIACIO, and H.E. EBERENZ for appellants.
TRABUE, DOOLAN, HELM & HELM and NELSON HELM and ROBERT T. CROWE and GUTHRIE F. CROWE for appellees.
Affirming.
Prior to September 27, 1926, until February 15, 1932, the Kentucky Bankers Association offered a reward for the arrest and conviction of any person robbing a bank which was at the time of the robbery a member of the association. On February 15, 1932, it caused notice to be published in newspapers and posted in every bank for the benefit of which the reward was offered that it had withdrawn its offer of $1,000 and offered a reward of $750 on similar terms. Later, on December 12, 1932, it withdrew all offers of reward for the arrest and conviction of any person robbing a member bank. Again, on December 23, 1932, it offered, advertised and gave notice in like manner that it offered a reward of $500 for the arrest and conviction of each person robbing, or attempting to rob, one of its member banks.
The Pewee Valley State Bank was on the 27th day of September, 1926, a member of the Kentucky Bankers Association and one of the guarantors of the reward. It was robbed on that day. At the time it was robbed Ira M. Froh, John B. McGillicuddy, A.W. Barmore, and Rudy Camentz were policemen of the city of Louisville. One or more of them were called to the office of the chief of police, and informed of "a bank holdup at Pewee Valley." Officer Cammack went to the bank immediately and talked to those in charge. He obtained all ascertainable information. They claim they induced the employees of the bank to visit next morning the detective's office in Louisville and furnished them with pictures of Wines and Price, whom they identified as two of the men engaged in the holdup. Subsequent investigations were made by the policemen during the following month. Later a bank at Indianapolis was robbed, and the men who did it were arrested at Atlanta, Ga., for the holdup of a bank at that place. The policemen claim that in 1929 or 1931 they imparted to M.O. Cassady the information contained in their files, and also that the men who robbed the Pewee Valley Bank had been identified. Cassady and Pollock dispute much of their testimony. Further than this, that which the policemen did or said was of no consequence, as it neither directly nor indirectly had anything to do, or any connection, with anything that led to the arrest and conviction of Wines. The terms of the reward were for the arrest and conviction of each person guilty of robbing a bank. It is very plain that no one of the policemen was entitled to any portion of the reward for the arrest and conviction of Wines, and the trial court properly so decreed. Benton v. Kentucky Bankers' Association, 211 Ky. 554, 277 S.W. 858; McClaughry v. King (C.C.A. Ark. 1906) 147 F. 463, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 216.
The duty devolves upon us to determine on the facts and the law whether Cassady is entitled to the reward, either of $1,000, $750, or the $500.
Previous to the robbing of the bank of Pewee Valley, Cassady had been sheriff of Oldham county, and thus had acquired experience in uncovering crime and locating criminals. He was at La Grange at the time the bank was robbed. At the time Wines and associates were returned to Indianapolis, he was at Martinsville, Ind., where he remained for about three weeks. While he was there, photographs of Wines and associates in crime were published in the newspapers with the statement they were the four men charged with robbing the bank in Indiana, which were seen by Cassady. As soon as he returned home, he interviewed Mr. Pollock, the cashier of the bank, and began to endeavor to identify the robbers. One of the men charged with the robbing of the Pewee Valley Bank had previously lived in Louisville and had a criminal record. At the November election, 1929, Cassady was elected sheriff, and entered on the duties of the office January 1, 1930. Thereafter he corresponded with the chief of police of Indianapolis and endeavored to get photographs of the robbers. He made a trip to Indianapolis to obtain their photographs and failed, but shortly thereafter he received same from the department of the chief of police at Indianapolis. Between the date of the robbery and the beginning of his term of office, he continued his investigation of the case "all the time." After receiving the photographs of the robbers, he carried them to the officers of the bank, who identified Wines. Thereafter he procured the indictment of Wines for the crime of robbing the Pewee Valley Bank. As soon as the indictment was returned, he obtained a copy of it and a bench warrant, and mailed them to the warden of the prison in which Wines was confined at Michigan City, Ind., the receipt of which was acknowledged by him with the information that Wines had been notified of his indictment in the Oldham circuit court and when he was paroled he (the warden) would notify him (Cassady) by wire. Later, he received notice by wire of the day Wines would be paroled. Thereupon he procured a requisition, went to Michigan City for him, and, as and when he was discharged from prison, he executed the requisition by taking him into actual custody, brought him back to La Grange, and delivered him to the jailer. He entered a plea of guilty in January, 1934, and was sentenced to the reformatory at Frankfort, where he is now confined, for the crime of robbing the Pewee Valley Bank. At the time Cassady was performing the services outlined above, he had information of the reward offered by the state bankers' association, and his efforts were induced by the hope and expectation on the arrest and conviction of Wines of receiving it.
It was the finding of the circuit court on the facts that Cassady was entitled to the reward of $750, and a decree was accordingly entered therefor against the state bankers' association. It is here insisted that Cassady did nothing toward identification, apprehension, or conviction of Wines, except as the sheriff of Oldham county, and that therefore whatever he did in respect thereto was done as an officer, "acting within his own jurisdiction," whose legal duty it was to do that which he did. It argues that Cassady's merely identifying, receiving, and returning Wines from another state to the jailer of Oldham county, do not constitute an arrest, within the meaning of the term, because he was commissioned at the time by the Governor as his agent and acting under a requisition.
The principle based on public policy that an officer cannot lawfully receive or recover a reward for the performance of a service which it is his duty to discharge is too well established and universally recognized to be subject to doubt or debate. Marking v. Needy, 8 Bush, 22; Riley v. Grace, 33 S.W. 207, 17 Ky. Law Rep. 1007; Smitha v. Gentry, 45 S.W. 515, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 171, 42 L.R.A. 302; Heather v. Thompson, 78 S.W. 194, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1554; Mason v. Manning, 150 Ky. 805, 150 S.W. 1020, 1021, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 131; Benton v. Kentucky Bankers' Ass'n, supra; Martin Fiscal Court v. Runyon, 222 Ky. 260, 300 S.W. 629.
The reason for the principle is:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial