Ledbetter v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1927
• Docket Number: No. 4199.,4199.
• Parties: LEDBETTER v. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

293 S.W. 791

LEDBETTER v. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO.

No. 4199.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 7, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dunklin County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.

Action by Jesse A. Ledbetter against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John R. Turney and A. H. Kiskaddon, both of St. Louis, and Wammack & Welborn, of Bloomfield, for appellant.

C. H. Dicus, of Poplar Bluff, and Smith & Zimmerman, of Kennett, for respondent.

COX, P. J.

Action for damages for unlawful arrest and detention of plaintiff. The petition was in three counts. The plaintiff dismissed as to the second count before a submission to the jury. The jury found for defendant on the first count and for plaintiff on the third count and assessed his actual damages on the third count at $250 and assessed punitive damages in the sum of $750, making a total of $1,000. Defendant appealed.

The substantial part of the charge in the third count of the petition was to the effect that defendant, railroad company, acting through its special agents, and servants, who were acting within the scope of their employment at the time, did, without any warrant or other legal process, and without probable cause or right or authority so to do, falsely, wantonly, maliciously, illegally, and unlawfully arrest plaintiff while a passenger on a Frisco passenger train in said city of Malden and take him off of said train in said city against his will; avers that after defendant so arrested and took him from said Frisco passenger train, upon which he had paid his fare to another point or destination, that it, this defendant, took plaintiff by force to its station in Malden, Mo., where defendant detained and imprisoned plaintiff in its said station house from 7 o'clock p. m. on said date until 11:30 p. m. on said date. It appears that the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad and this defendant, the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, cross at Arbyrd, Mo. The defendant carried as freight a box of cigarettes consigned to a party at Arbyrd and unloaded it there. By mistake the box was then loaded on a car of the Frisco Railroad and carried to Paulding. Plaintiff for some time had been riding on freight trains of the Frisco, helping the trainmen to some extent in an effort to learn the work of a brakeman. He was at Paulding when the freight train of the Frisco on which the box of cigarettes had been placed at Arbyrd arrived at Paulding. Some one on the train put this box of cigarettes out and told plaintiff that it belonged at Arbyrd and asked him to take it back and put it in the caboose of the train. This the plaintiff did and plaintiff testified that he never saw the box thereafter and knew nothing about what became of it. The special agents of defendant, whose duty it was to protect the company's property and make investigations of depredations and other irregularities, apparently acted upon the belief that the box had been stolen and undertook to ascertain what had become of the box and to locate and identify the thief. In their investigation they interviewed plaintiff on at least three different occasions and plaintiff's case is founded on what occurred at these interviews. The third count of the petition on which the verdict for plaintiff was returned was based on what occurred at Malden, Mo., and we shall confine ourselves to that part of the testimony. The testimony of plaintiff as to what occurred at Malden was substantially as follows: That he had purchased a ticket at Gideon, Mo., for Kennet, Mo., and was on the train on his way to Kennet. When this train reached Malden, a special agent of defendant came into the coach where plaintiff was sitting and by threats and the display of a pistol forced him, against his will, to get off the train. He was taken to the express office, locked up in there for a while, and then taken to the depot. While at the depot, the party in charge of him put in a telephone call for parties at Campbell, Mo. Plaintiff heard him tell the central girl to make it snappy, for he had a boy there under arrest and he wanted to get them over there as quickly as he could. When the parties called arrived at Malden from Campbell, the plaintiff was taken back to the same office where he had been locked up shortly before. While in this room he was questioned by the parties and at the point of a pistol forced to sign a statement which they had prepared and which they refused to read to him and refused to permit him to read. This testimony of plaintiff, as far as it details the use of threats or force to compel plaintiff to get off the train or to do anything, was denied by the witnesses for defendant. Their testimony was to the effect that plaintiff got off the train willingly and that he was in no sense restrained of his liberty or forced to sign any statement. The weight of the evidence however, was for the jury, and, if credence is to be given the testimony of plaintiff, it is clear that he was not only arrested and restrained of his liberty, but was treated most outrageously by the agents of defendant.

Defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's testimony and the adverse ruling of the court thereon and error in instructions are the chief points relied upon for reversal. On the demurrer to the testimony the contention is made that it is not shown that the agents of defendant were acting within the scope of their employment. The scope of the employment of these special agents is expressed by Mr. Reardon, a witness for defendant, as follows:

"I am divisional special agent. I'm the man who is charged with the protection of the company's property and also charged with the duty of making investigation of depredations and irregularities which occur. It is designated as the special service department. My duties are to supervise the protection of the railroad property in a radius of about 400 miles from Jonesboro, Ark., to St. Louis, Mo."

He had 12 or 14 men under him. One of these was the man who plaintiff said took him off the train at Malden and had charge of him there. That makes it clear that the parties who interviewed plaintiff at Malden were the special agents of defendant and that these agents were charged with the duty to protect the property of defendant and to that end to make...