McIntosh v. City and County of Denver, 13737.
| Decision Date | 16 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | 13737. |
| Citation | 55 P.2d 1337,98 Colo. 403 |
| Parties | McINTOSH v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Henley A Calvert, Judge.
Suit for malicious prosecution by J. A. McIntosh against the City and County of Denver. To review an order dismissing his complaint, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Hicks & Hicks, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Teller Ammons and Robert J. Kirschwing, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
On the 2d day of December, 1931, J. A. McIntosh, while at police headquarters in the City and County of Denver, was arrested by police officers, placed in jail, and, after 66 hours of incarceration therein, was taken Before the police court of the City and County of Denver, charged with vagrancy carrying concealed weapons, and impersonating an officer. He there was found guilty and find $50 and costs on each charge. Upon appeal to the county court, on January 15, 1932, he was tried to the court without a jury on the charge of vagrancy adjudged guilty, and sentenced to serve a term of 30 days in the county jail. This judgment was reviewed by this court upon application for supersedeas, and in reversing the judgment we said: 'We find, after a painstaking examination of the record, that the evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain the charge.' McIntosh v. City and County of Denver, 92 Colo. 301, 19 P.2d 753, 754. Thereafter McIntosh filed his complaint in the district court against the City and County of Denver for damages for malicious prosecution. The substance of the complaint is in effect that the police officers, the police judge, the deputy warden of the county jail, and the members of the legal department of the City and County of Denver wantonly and maliciously arrested, imprisoned, and prosecuted him without probable cause. To this complaint the city filed its demurrer, which was sustained by the court upon the general ground that the city was not liable for the acts of the officers and employees as alleged. McIntosh elected to stand, and now seeks a reversal of the order of the district court dismissing his complaint.
McIntosh contends that the city is liable, in that this is an action for malicious prosecution, and that the sufficiency of the complaint is not to be determined under the rule that cities and towns are not responsible for the negligent acts of their public officers in the execution of governmental authority and he seems to rely upon the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trimble v. City and County of Denver
...E. McQuillan & S. Flanagan, Municipal Corporations § 53.62 (1984) (footnotes omitted). However, in McIntosh v. City and County of Denver, 98 Colo. 403, 55 P.2d 1337 (1936), we held that the city could not be held vicariously liable to the plaintiff based on his allegations that the city pol......
-
City and County of Denver v. Madison
...of Denver v. Forster, 89 Colo. 246, 1 P.2d 922; Meek v. City of Loveland, 85 Colo. 346, 276 P. 30; McIntosh v. City and County of Denver, 98 Colo. 403, 55 P.2d 1337, 103 A.L.R. 1509; Schwalb v. Counely, 116 Colo. 195, 179 P.2d 667; Barker v. City and County of Denver, 113 Colo. 543, 160 P.2......
-
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Continental Cas. Co., s. 90-1320
...Malicious prosecution "is an intentional wrongful prosecution without just cause or excuse." McIntosh v. City and County of Denver, 98 Colo. 403, 55 P.2d 1337, 1338 (Colo.1936).4 Similar attempts to erect new coverage barriers for the first time on appeal have been rejected, e.g., Ohio Cas.......
-
Atkinson v. City and County of Denver
... ... liable for the acts of its officers and agents in carrying ... out the provisions of an ordinance. McIntosh v. City and ... County of Denver, 98 Colo. 403, 55 P.2d 1337, 103 A.L.R ... 1509; Williams v. City of Longmont, 109 Colo. 567, ... 129 P.2d 110, ... ...