Miller v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Decision Date | 25 June 1952 |
Docket Number | 7642 |
Parties | MILLER v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 21, 1951.
Reargued May 27, 1952
Editorial Note:
This Pagination of this case accurately reflects the pagination of the original published, though it may appears out of sequence.
Appeal, No. 150, Jan. T., 1951, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County, June T., 1949, No 2059, in case of Clarence W. Miller v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Judgment reversed.
Trespass for malicious prosecution. Before MACNEILLE, P.J.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $4,800. and judgment entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and judgment entered for defendant non obstante veredicto .
Theodore Voorhees , with him F. Hastings Griffin, Jr., Philip Price , and Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers & Rhoads , for appellant.
Henry W. Balka , with him Edward J. Cooke, Jr ., and Jesse N. Goldstein , for appellee.
Before DREW, C.J., STERN, STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY and MUSMANNO, JJ.
Plaintiff Clarence W. Miller, filed this complaint in trespass for malicious prosecution against defendant, Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The court below submitted the issue of want of probable cause to a jury which found for plaintiff in the sum of $4,780. That court, after dismissing defendant's motions for judgment n.o.v. and for new trial, entered judgment on the verdict. Defendant appealed.
Submission of this case to the jury violated an ancient principle of law undeviatingly followed by this Court over many years, viz.: in a suit for malicious prosecution, where there is no conflict in the testimony, then even though the testimony be oral, want of probable cause is a question exclusively for the court .
The reason for the rule of law has been frequently stated; text-writers assert that courts unanimously agree that the interest of society in law enforcement is the more important of conflicting public policies. Typical excerpts from legal text-books follow: Winfield, Law of Tort (1948) p. 610.
Green, Judge and Jury (1930) p. 338.
Prosser on Torts (1941) p. 870.
The following facts are undisputed: for some time prior to June 29, 1947, defendant had discovered various thefts of merchandise from freight cars in its Harrisburg freight yards. Most of the thefts occurred during the 4 p.m. to midnight shift. On June 29, 1947, at about 10:35 p.m., Sergeant Frantz of the Railroad Police, saw a man dressed in khaki cross the freight yard, go to some high grass, pick up a package and place it in a pick-up truck. Because Frantz was on foot and about 500 feet away, he was unable to follow the truck. On the same night, at about 4:30 a.m., Frantz discovered that the seal on a freight car had been broken and that three blowtorches were missing from inside the car. The Railroad Police made no progress in solving the crimes until July 13, 1947, when Sergeant Frantz and another railroad policeman discovered that another railroad car had been entered and a quantity of T-shirts removed. A check was then made of the employes' automobiles and the T-shirts were found in a car owned by Harry Kurtz, one of defendant's employes. When Kurtz returned to his car, he was questioned and then taken to the office of the captain of the Railroad Police (Captain Monaghan). Kurtz admitted the theft of the T-shirts and also of the blowtorches. Kurtz stated that one McCall and another man whose name he did not remember but whom he described as about "five feet eleven and 177 pounds" and who wore khaki clothes, were his accomplices. At the request of Captain Monaghan, a state policeman (Sergeant Funk) was assigned to the case. McCall was then questioned and placed under arrest. One of the missing blowtorches was discovered at McCall's home. Whem questioned by Funk, McCall stated that he, Miller (plaintiff) and Kurtz (all were employes of defendant working together as a team of brakemen on the same evening shift) had taken the blowtorches from the railroad car. When McCall was taken to the Pennsylvania State Police barracks, he repeated his allegations that Miller and Kurtz also "took a torch from this car." His statement, taken in the presence of Sergeants Funk (State Police) and Frantz (Railroad police), was reduced to writing and signed by McCall and later sworn to by him before a notary public.
Frantz obtained a search and body warrant for plaintiff and on the next day, July 14, 1947, accompanied by Sergeant Funk, went to Miller's house. A search of the house failed to reveal a blowtorch of the type taken from the railroad car. Plaintiff was then taken to the police department of defendant and questioned by the two officers and Captain Monaghan. He was then told that Kurtz and McCall had accused him of stealing a blowtorch. What occurred thereafter is summarized by the court below:
Sergeant Frantz testified:
Plaintiff then was taken before Squire Richards in Harrisburg where he was placed under arrest and, upon the testimony of Frantz and Monaghan, was charged with burglary and larceny of a blowtorch.
Upon indictment by the Grand Jury, plaintiff was tried before Judge WRIGHT without a jury on the charges of burglary and receiving stolen goods. Judge WRIGHT found him not guilty. Plaintiff thereupon instituted this action for malicious prosecution.
This Court has recently considered the elements of an action for malicious prosecution. In Byers v. Ward, 368 Pa. 416, 84 A.2d 307, it was stated:
Plaintiff has the burden of proving want of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Lopinson
... 234 A.2d 552 427 Pa. 284 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Jack LOPINSON, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. September 26, 1967 ... King v. Holt, 200 Pa.Super. 431, 435, 188 A.2d 760, 762 ... (1963). Cf. Miller v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 371 Pa. 308, ... 327, 89 A.2d 809, 817 (1952) (Stern, J. dissenting) ... ...
-
Miller v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...89 A.2d 809 371 Pa. 308 MILLER v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. June 25, 1952. Concurring Opinion June 26, 1952. [371 Pa. 309] Philip Price, Theodore Voorhees, F. Hastings Griffin, Jr., Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers & Clark, Philadelphia, for appellant. Edward J. Cooke,......
-
Com. v. Lopinson
...137 A.2d 788, 789 (1958); King v. Holt, 200 Pa.Super. 431, 435, 188 A.2d 760, 762 (1963). Cf. Miller v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 371 Pa. 308, 327, 89 A.2d 809, 817 (1952) (Stern, J. dissenting).6 Commonwealth's counsel, who was nearby, admitted the utterance of a vulgar remark by Phelan direc......