Nemec v. Brown
Decision Date | 04 November 1921 |
Docket Number | 22,487 |
Parties | FRANK E. NEMEC v. EARLE BROWN AND NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $200,000 upon defendant sheriff's bond. From an order, Molyneaux J., sustaining the separate demurrers of defendants to the complaint, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Sheriff not liable for premature delivery of extradited prisoner.
1. The fact that, pending an appeal in habeas corpus proceedings, a sheriff, in violation of the statute, prematurely delivered a prisoner, whom he lawfully held in custody under an extradition warrant, to the agent of the demanding state named in such warrant, and failed to accompany him to the state line as provided by the statute, does not of itself create a cause of action for damages where the wrongful act of the sheriff is not the proximate cause of the alleged damages.
When sheriff is liable only to statutory punishment for violation of duty.
2. Where the legislature prohibits or requires the doing of an act by a sheriff and prescribes a punishment for a violation of its mandate, the punishment furnishes the exclusive remedy for the wrong and the act cannot be made the basis of an action for damages, unless the aggrieved party has been specially injured thereby in his person or property.
H. K Chance, for appellant.
Floyd B. Olson and Lancaster, Simpson, Junell & Dorsey, for respondents.
This action was brought to recover damages from the sheriff of Hennepin county and his bondsmen, for an alleged delinquency of the sheriff in the performance of his official duties. From an order of the district court sustaining defendants' demurrers to the complaint, plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff was arrested by the sheriff under an extradition warrant issued by the Governor of Minnesota upon the requisition of the Governor of Illinois. After arrest plaintiff obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the district court. Upon hearing, the writ was quashed and plaintiff remanded to the custody of the sheriff. On the same day plaintiff appealed to the supreme court from the order quashing the writ, and served notice of such appeal upon the sheriff and county attorney. Before a hearing on the appeal was had the sheriff turned plaintiff over to the agent of the state of Illinois and he was taken to that state where he was tried and acquitted on the requisition charge. But the habeas corpus appeal was without merit, and this court ordered plaintiff remanded to the custody of the agent. Plaintiff therefore was bound to go to Illinois on the warrant of extradition, and he suffered no injury by the premature action of defendant in surrendering custody to the Illinois agent.
This action is brought to recover exemplary damages for the delinquency of the sheriff in turning plaintiff over to the Illinois agent while such appeal was pending, and for his failure to accompany plaintiff to the state line before turning him over to the Illinois agent. The action is based upon the provisions of G.S. 1913, §§ 9038-9043. Section 9038, after providing for an investigation by the attorney general or county attorney of the ground of a demand for a fugitive and the issuance by the Governor of his warrant authorizing a sheriff to take the person to the state line and there deliver him to the agent of the state making the demand, provides that:
The statute creates no substantive rights in persons arrested on extradition warrants, nor does it give to such persons a civil right of...
To continue reading
Request your trial