Nelson v. Halvorson
| Decision Date | 19 April 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,497 - (66) |
| Parties | ALFRED NELSON v. HENRY HALVORSON and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Lac qui Parle county to recover $5,000 for false imprisonment. The case was tried before Qvale, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $500. From an order denying their motion for a new trial, defendants Ness and Halvorson took separate appeals. Reversed as to Halvorson. Affirmed as to Ness.
Punitive damages -- case followed.
McCarthy v. Niskern, 22 Minn. 90, followed, to the effect that in an action for a tort, where it may be proper to award punitive damages, evidence of a defendant's financial standing is admissible.
False imprisonment -- arrest by officer.
In an action for false imprisonment against a constable, a defense may be made out if the officer proves that he had probable ground for believing the person arrested guilty of a felony although when he made the arrest he mistakenly believed he had a warrant therefor.
Punitive damages -- different penalties.
When two or more persons are made defendants in an action for tort, and the evidence is such that the jury may be justified in assessing punitive damages against one and not against the others, or if such damages may be assessed against all, still there is such difference in their financial ability or in the malice which actuated them that the jury may properly fix different penalties, it is error to instruct that the verdict against all must be in the same amount.
Evidence.
The erroneous instruction held not prejudicial to one of the defendants in this case. Also, held, that the offer by such defendant to prove justification was incomplete, and that he could not have been prejudiced by the refusal of an offer to show certain facts in mitigation of damages.
A. W Ewing and H. O. Halvorson, for appellants.
J. H. Driscoll, for respondent.
Plaintiff sued Henry Halvorson, a constable, and Louis Ness, a merchant, of Dawson, Minnesota, for false imprisonment, and recovered a verdict against both defendants for $500. Each defendant appeals from an order denying their separate motions for a new trial.
The complaint is the usual one for false imprisonment. The defendants answered separately, and admitted the arrest without warrant.
Halvorson alleged that he had reasonable grounds to believe that plaintiff had committed a felony, stating these, and also that he acted under a supposed warrant, but that as soon as he ascertained the invalidity thereof, and the unwillingness of the owners of the money alleged to have been embezzled by plaintiff to make a complaint against him, plaintiff was released.
The defendant Ness alleged that he acted on the advice of counsel, and, ignorant of legal proceedings, believed that an unsigned writ of attachment made out by his attorney authorized plaintiff's detention, and he also alleged facts showing the commission of a felony by plaintiff, namely, that one Logeland, Ness, and his brother were owners of some potatoes, which plaintiff, prior to December 6, 1910, had, as their servant, sold and collected the money for; that plaintiff, after collecting the money, had unlawfully converted $68 thereof to his own use with intent to deprive the owners of the same, and had refused to pay it over after demand.
The evidence developed that in the forenoon of the day mentioned a dispute arose between plaintiff and the owners of the potatoes as to the proceeds, and, the defendant Ness and Logeland having determined that plaintiff ought to be arrested, Ness went to his attorney, one Christianson, to cause the required documents to be made out, and Logeland sought the constable, Halvorson, and told him of the potato deal, and that plaintiff had embezzled the money and was about to leave the town, and requested the officer to be at the depot ready to apprehend plaintiff as soon as Ness could procure the warrant for the arrest from Christianson. No warrant was obtained. Instead, Christianson made out a writ of attachment for a justice to issue. Ness, not having time to get the justice to sign it, as the train had in the meantime arrived and was about to leave with plaintiff on board, rushed up to Halvorson with the blank writ and told him to get plaintiff. Halvorson took the paper, believing it to be a warrant, ran for the train, and made the arrest. After plaintiff got off the train, all went to the attorney's office. There, the constable claims, as soon as he discovered that the paper was not a warrant, plaintiff was informed that he was not under arrest. Plaintiff claims that, although he was not put under restraint, he was told that he could go with Logeland, if he would vouch for him to remain in Dawson till the next day. He also states that the attorney threatened to get a search warrant for his person, and he told them that it was not necessary, that he would submit to a search without, and that thereupon Ness told him to empty his pockets, which he did, and Ness examined his pocketbook, but returned it intact.
The errors assigned relate to the reception of evidence as to the financial standing of defendant Halvorson; the exclusion of evidence to prove that plaintiff had committed a felony; the court's ruling that there was no justification for the arrest on the part of the officer, even if he had probable cause to believe that plaintiff was guilty; the court's instruction to the jury that, in case they found that punitive damages should be assessed against Ness, a verdict must be rendered against the constable for a like amount; and, finally, that the verdict is excessive.
In a case where a jury may assess damages by way of punishment, a defendant's financial condition is proper for consideration, and consequently evidence showing such condition is admissible. McCarthy v. Niskern, 22 Minn. 90. If the jury believed that Halvorson, in making the arrest, did not act in good faith, or that, after he ascertained that he had no warrant, he took part in restraining plaintiff of his liberty, by placing him in the custody of Logeland, and aided in...
To continue reading
Request your trial