Landseidel v. Culeman
| Decision Date | 21 February 1921 |
| Citation | 181 N.W. 593,47 N.D. 275 |
| Parties | LANDSEIDEL v. CULEMAN et al. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
The plaintiff was arrested by a deputy sheriff under a warrant issued by a justice of the peace. The warrant purports to have been issued pursuant to a complaint of one Schwenk, a creditor of the plaintiff, charging that the defendant (the plaintiff herein) used a fraudulent and false device to cheat the complainant. The plaintiff was taken before the justice of the peace and was later remitted to the custody of the officer who locked him in jail. In an action for damages for the arrest, it is held:
A justice of the peace, in the exercise of his judicial functions, is immune from personal liability for the correctness of his decisions and acts to the same extent as judges of courts of general jurisdiction.
A justice of the peace, acting judicially, and within his jurisdiction, is not personally liable for damages resulting from the arrest and confinement of an individual in jail, though it might appear that he had acted maliciously and without a belief that the person had committed a criminal offense.
Where two or more defendants are sued jointly for damages arising out of malicious trespass against the person of the plaintiff, and, from the evidence and the issuable facts as found by the jury in a special verdict, it appears that one of the defendants is not liable, the award of punitive damages cannot stand as to the codefendants.
Appeal from District Court, Morton County; Crawford, Judge.
Action by Peter Landseidel against R. Culeman and others. From an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.Jacobsen & Murray, of Mott, for appellants.
Sullivan & Sullivan, of Mandan, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The action is one to recover damages for illegal imprisonment of the plaintiff, Landseidel, in the city jail of Hebron, N. D., in circumstances presently to be stated. The action was tried before a jury and a special verdict rendered. Upon this verdict judgment was entered for the plaintiff. Consideration of the errors assigned upon this appeal requires that attention be given to the allegations of the complaint as well as to the evidence adduced at the trial and the special verdict. The complaint is stated in eight paragraphs. All of them except the first relate to the damages. The cause of action is alleged in the first paragraph, which reads as follows:
“That on the 17th day of July, 1919, at Hebron, in the county of Morton, state of North Dakota, the defendant Rome Theiring, at the instigation and procurement and request and orders of the defendants Fred Schwenk, R. Culeman and Peter Jungers, unlawfully and maliciously, and without probable or reasonable cause, and without any cause whatsoever, but solely for the purpose of attempting to extort from this plaintiff a note and mortgage, and with intent to injure the plaintiff, by force compelled the plaintiff to go with him to the city jail of Hebron, N. D., and there imprisoned this plaintiff, and then and there detained him and restrained him of his liberty from 11 o'clock on July 17, 1919, to noon on the 18th day of July, 1919, against the will of the plaintiff herein.”
Upon the trial the defendants objected to the introduction of any evidence on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The objection was overruled and testimony was adduced showing that the plaintiff, for a considerable period prior to his arrest, had been indebted to the defendant Schwenk in an amount approximating $87; that there had been some understanding between Schwenk and the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff would give Schwenk the exclusive agency for the sale of his government homestead, consisting of 80 acres in Stark county, and that out of the proceeds of such sale Schwenck's claim might be satisfied. It appears that the plaintiff subsequently sold his land and disposed of the proceeds without paying Schwenk's claim. There were some negotiations looking toward a settlement in June, 1919, and as a result the plaintiff agreed to discharge the claim at the rate of $10 per month. He accordingly paid $10 on June 28th. In the evening of the 17th of July, as the plaintiff and his wife were leaving the dentist's office in Hebron, Theiring, a deputy sheriff, arrested the plaintiff upon a warrant issued by the defendant Culeman, a justice of the peace. The warrant had been issued upon the complaint of Schwenk, charging that on the 29th day of December, 1917, at the city of Hebron in Morton county, the above-named defendant (Landseidel) “did willfully and unlawfully swindle this plaintiff out of his money by means of a note in writing and which defendant used as a false and fraudulent device to cheat this complainant,” etc. The warrant was fair on its face, but it does not appear that the complaint had been submitted to the state's attorney as required by section 10535, C. L. 1913. There is evidence, however, that the state's attorney had talked with the justice of the peace some time previously and had given him to understand that he might issue warrants in minor cases where he thought a man should be arrested; that it would be all right with him and he would okey it. Immediately after the arrest the plaintiff was taken to the office of the defendant Jungers, an attorney at law, who apparently was representing Schwenk. The defendant Culeman was also there. The plaintiff desired a continuance, owing to the absence from the city of his attorney. After some discussion involving the Schwenk claim, and, as the defendants Jungers and Culeman testified, involving also the unwillingness of the plaintiff herein to give bail in the sum of $50 for his appearance the following day, the plaintiff was taken to the city jail and locked up for the night. On the following morning he was allowed to go home for his breakfast with the understanding that he would return in about an hour. Upon his return he was again taken to the office of Jungers, where there was some further discussion with reference to the Schwenk claim. Jungers, Schwenk, and Culeman were present and participated in the discussion. It seems that Landseidel was given to understand at the time of both his appearances before the justice of the peace in Junger's office that if he would pay the Schwenk claim, or if he and his wife would join in a mortgage upon their home in Hebron securing it, the proceedings against him would be dropped. The plaintiff refused to give the mortgage demanded and to give bail whereupon he was returned to the jail and kept confined for several hours. An entry in the justice's docket dated July 19, 1919, shows that on July 18th the defendant refused to give any undertaking and that he was left in charge of the officer. Following this is this statement:
“Later, complaining witness dropped the prosecution and the case was then dismissed with costs in the sum of $6.00 against the complaining witness Fred Schwenk.”
Upon the trial the action was dismissed as to Theiring, deputy sheriff, who made the arrest, upon the stipulation that the dismissal should not affect the cause of action against the other defendants.
It seems that the complaint upon which the warrant issued was drawn under section 9968, C. L. 1913, which makes it a felony for one person to obtain money or property from another “by color or aid of any false token or writing or other false pretense,” etc. There were 21 questions submitted to the jury for their special verdict, some of which were not answered. The questions responded to and the answers are as follows:
“Q. Did the defendants, Fred Schwenk, R. Culeman, and Peter S. Jungers, jointly, on or about the 17th day of July, 1919, at Hebron, N. D., without probable or reasonable cause and maliciously and for the purpose of attempting to extort from the plaintiff, Peter Landseidel, money or a note and mortgage, cause Peter Landseidel, the plaintiff, to be arrested and confined in the city jail of Hebron, N. D.? A. Yes.
Q. Did the defendants, Fred Schwenk, R. Culeman, and P. S. Jungers, in instituting and executing the proceedings leading up to the arrest of the plaintiff herein, and in causing the arrest and detention of the plaintiff, Peter Landseidel, if you find such to be the fact, actually and in good faith believe that the plaintiff, Peter Landseidel, had committed the crime of obtaining property by false pretense or any other crime? A. No.
Q. If you find that some of them in executing and instituting said proceedings did in fact believe in good faith that Landseidel had committed some crime, you will state which of the defendants in good faith believed that Landseidel had committed a crime. A. None of them.
Q. If you find that in fact the plaintiff was arrested, did said arrest cause the plaintiff mental suffering? A. Yes.
Q. If you find that in fact the plaintiff was arrested, did said arrest reasonably cause the plaintiff physical suffering? A. Yes.
Q. If you find that in fact the plaintiff was arrested, did said arrest reasonably cause the plaintiff to be kept from his work? A. Yes.
Q. Were all the acts and things that you find were done or caused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huendling v. Jensen
...liability. The court held a demurrer should have been sustained stating the rule of judicial immunity. In Landseidel v. Culeman, 47 N.D. 275, 181 N.W. 593, 595, 13 A.L.R. 1339, 1343, the jury by special verdict found justice of peace who issued the arrest warrant acted with others without p......
-
Kittler v. Kelsch
...settled that judicial officers are not liable in a civil action for any decision within their jurisdiction. Landseidel v. Culeman, 47 N. D. 275, 181 N. W. 593, 13 A. L. R. 1339. In the case at bar, there is no question about jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction as a committing magistrat......
-
Yaselli v. Goff
...v. Thorpe, 33 N. J. Law, 134; Butler v. Potter, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 145; Cunningham v. Dillard, 20 N. C. 485; Landseidel v. Culeman. 47 N. D. 275, 181 N. W. 593, 13 A. L. R. 1339; Johnston v. Moarman, 80 Va. 131. There are, however, authorities in certain jurisdictions in which it has been he......
-
United States v. Chaplin
...was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, 275 U.S. 503, 48 S.Ct. 155, 72 L.Ed. 395. In Landseidel v. Culeman, 47 N.D. 275, 181 N.W. 593, 594, 13 A.L.R. 1339, at page 1342, the plaintiff was arrested by a deputy sheriff under a warrant issued by a justice of the peace. The warr......