Murphy v. Walters
| Decision Date | 06 June 1876 |
| Citation | 34 Mich. 180 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Chauncy Murphy v. William Walters |
Heard April 20, 1876
Error to Ingham Circuit.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
Dart & Shields, for plaintiff in error.
Edward Cahill, for defendant in error.
Walters sued Murphy for a wrongful arrest on void process, and obtained a judgment below, which is removed into this court by writ of error. The errors assigned arise upon the rulings on trial.
Murphy complained before a magistrate that Walters had procured one Snyder to vote for a moderator at a school district meeting the latter not being a voter and Walters knowing that fact. Upon Murphy's affidavit and complaint a criminal warrant issued setting forth the same form of charge contained in the complaint, on which Walters was arrested, examined and finally discharged. The declaration included counts for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, but the case went to the jury on the theory of false imprisonment.
There was evidence in the case which the jury were at liberty to believe, that Murphy expressed to the person representing the prosecuting attorney that he did not wish to commence any complaint unless Walters was liable, and that upon being advised of such liability he signed the complaint drawn up by that person and swore to it before the justice, with whom it was left until, some weeks afterwards, the warrant was issued and Walters was arrested without any further intervention by Murphy except as a witness.
The only important question in the cause arises upon the refusal of the circuit judge to charge as requested by the plaintiff in error, that if the warrant was void and the arrest illegal, still if the jury should find "that the defendant merely stated the facts and circumstances of which he complained to George G. Lapham, an attorney at law and acting prosecuting attorney for this county, and that such statement was reduced to writing by said attorney and sworn to by said defendant Murphy, and that on such complaint, and at the request of said attorney (Lapham) the warrant was made by the justice, the defendant is not liable in this action for false imprisonment."
This request assumes that Lapham, in what he did, was looked upon by Murphy as in no sense his attorney, but as representing the public prosecutor, and that whatever Murphy did was in subordination to his advice and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Root v. Rose
...for executing the court's order. Bishop's Non-Contract Law 792. Marks v. Townsend, 97 N.Y. 590; Melten v. Adams, 52 N.Y. 409; Murphy v. Walters, 34 Mich. 180; Fenelon Butts, 49 Wis. 342; Hahn v. Schmidt, 64 Cal. 284; Fisher v. Langbein, 103 N.Y. 84; Dusy v. Helin, 59 Cal. 188. The defendant......
-
Lewis v. Farmer Jack Div., Inc.
...B. Merely Reporting The distinction between false arrest and merely giving the police information was early drawn in Murphy v. Walters, 34 Mich. 180, 181 (1876). In that case, the defendant, upon being advised by the prosecutor's representative that certain action committed by the plaintiff......
-
Rush v. Buckley
...v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 144 Mass. 431, 11 N. E. 697; Gifford v. Wiggins, 50 Minn. 401, 52 N. W. 904, 18 L. R. A. 356; Murphy v. Walters, 34 Mich. 180; Teal v. Fissel (C. C.) 28 Fed. 351. If the complaint is malicious and without probable cause, the complainant would be answerable in a......
-
Smith v. Clark
...is invalid. In either case, the acts charged constitute no offense, because there is no law making them such." In the case of Murphy v. Walters, 34 Mich. 180, it said: "It seems to be considered that in criminal proceedings a person who simply lays facts before a magistrate, and leaves all ......