Odinetz v. Budds

• Decision Date: 11 September 1946
• Docket Number: Nos. 60,April Term, 1946.,61,s. 60
• Citation: 315 Mich. 512,24 N.W.2d 193
• Parties: ODINETZ v. BUDDS. SAME v. BUDDS et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

315 Mich. 512

24 N.W.2d 193

ODINETZ

v.BUDDS.

SAME

v.BUDDS et al.

Nos. 60, 61, April Term, 1946.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 11, 1946.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Robert M. Toms, judge.

Actions by Mike Odinetz against Charles Budds and others for false arrest and imprisonment and the cases were consolidated for trial. From judgments entered on verdicts after remittitur against named defendant and against named defendant and another, named defendant and named defendant and the other appeal.

Judgments affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.

Stanley J. Draganski and Con S. Gryczka, both of Hamtramck, for defendants and appellants.

Davidow & Davidow, of Detroit, for plaintiff and appellee.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

Plaintiff Mike Odinetz has resided in the city of Hamteramck since 1921. During that year he purchased a building located at 3080-84 Miller avenue, where he opened a restaurant. In 1924 he made some alterations in the building and thereafter continuedto operate a restaurant downstairs and a rooming house upstairs. Sometime prior to 1940 he sold the 3084 Miller avenue property and later repurchased it. In the latter part of 1940 Odinetz resumed occupancy of all of the Miller avenue property.

Early in 1941 he was arrested and charged with a violation of the State liquor law, on which charge he was found guilty and fined $300. Subsequently proceedings were instituted in the Wayne circuit court to have Odinetz's premises padlocked, on the ground that he had permitted the operation of a public nuisance therein. The circuit court, instead of ordering the permises padlocked, permitted Odinetz to post a bond in the sum of $1,000, conditioned upon the discontinuance of the illegal sale of liquor.

Prior to this hearing and after the former conviction, Odinetz was arrested on September 26, 1941, and charged with operating a restaurant without a license. He was kept in jail overnight and released the next morning. It is his claim that on this occasion the arresting officers, defendants Budds and Chojnacki took $160 in money from his premises, which was not returned. Odinetz was subsequently acquitted of the charge of operating a restaurant without a license.

The record shows that thereafter during the remainder of 1941 and throughout 1942, Odinetz was arrested at frequent intervals and generally released without being charged with any violation of city ordinances or State statutes. The examination of the testimony forces the conclusion that the arresting officers were continually raiding Odinetz's place of business. They frequently arrested him and his patrons, without the issuance of criminal warrants, in their desire to secure evidence of violations of the State liquor law. After such arrests, when warrants were sought and denied, those arrested, including Odinetz, were released. On other occasions the arrests were sought to be justified by charging him with violations of the city ordinance, viz., operating a restaurant without a license, on which charge he was never convicted.

It should be noted that he was licensed from year to year prior to 1941 by the city as a restaurant keeper, but action on his application for renewal of his restaurant license was unexplainably deferred thereafter.

On November 12, 1941, Odinetz instituted an action for false arrest and imprisonment against John Sikorski, George Spiegel, and Charles Budds. Sikorski was then chief of police of Hamtramck, Spiegel was an officer of the Hamtramck police department, in charge of investigation of license violations and miscellaneous complaints, and Budds, was a member of the police force. The action against Sikorski was dismissed on motion, a verdict was directed in favor of Spiegel, and the jury rendered a verdict of $7,000 against Budds.

More than a year after Odinetz instituted the Spiegel, Sikorski and Budds action, he began another action on December 16, 1942, against Sikorski, Budds and Chojnacki, also for false arrest and imprisonment. This second action was dismissed on motion non obstante veredicto as to Sikorski, and the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor against Budds and Chojnacki in the sum of $5,000. The two cases had been consolidated for trial and separate motions for new trials were filed by the respective defendants. Odinetz filed a remittitur in the first case of $4,000, and in the second case, of $3,000, and asked that the judgments be entered in the sums of $3,000 and $2,000, respectively. Upon the filing of the remittiturs the circuit court denied the motions for new trials. On appeal from the judgments entered after the remittiturs, the cases were submitted to this court upon a lengthy record and extensive briefs. The questions raised by appellants may be summarized as follows:

1. Was Odinetz falsely arrested and imprisoned as charged in his several declarations?

2. Were appellants legally justified in arresting Odinetz on the several occasions in question without a warrant?

3. Was the verdict of the jury against the great weight of the evidence, contrary to the law and the charge of the court?

4. Did Odinetz prove any damages?

5. Did he substantiate his declarations by a preponderance of the evidence, and were the verdicts based on evidence rather than on bias, passion and prejudice?

6. Was the amount of damages excessive, and should the court have approved the remittiturs in question?

7. Did the trial court err in denying the motions for directed verdicts and for new trials, and did counsel for plaintiff commit reversible error by injecting unfavorable and prejudicial remarks against the city of Hamtramck?

At the...