Peters v. City of Lindsborg

Decision Date09 February 1889
Citation20 P. 490,40 Kan. 654
PartiesEDWARD PETERS v. THE CITY OF LINDSBORG et al
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Error from McPherson District Court.

THE opinion states the case. Judgment for the defendant City and the marshal thereof, at the November term, 1885. The plaintiff Peters brings the case here.

Judgment reversed.

Frank G. White, for plaintiff in error.

Simpson Bowker & Travis, for defendants in error.

HOLT C. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

HOLT, C.:

This is an action for damages for false imprisonment. The demurrer to plaintiff's petition was sustained, and from that judgment the plaintiff comes to this court as plaintiff in error. The petition, which is a lengthy one, states that the plaintiff was a resident of the city of Lindsborg; that on the 9th day of June, 1884, while he was quietly sitting in front of the Metropolitan hotel in said city of Lindsborg sober, quiet, and violating no law of the state of Kansas or the city of Lindsborg, the defendant, Ole Amundson, in his official capacity as marshal, approached plaintiff in a loud, rough, etc., manner, and without any authority of law placed iron handcuffs upon plaintiff's wrists and fastened them together, and took him to the city prison, where he was confined, and afterward he was compelled to perform manual labor upon the streets of said city.

We see no reason why the petition does not state a cause of action against Ole Amundson, the marshal. It alleges that without any warrant or authority of law he arrested plaintiff and submitted him to certain indignities, deprived him of his liberty, and compelled him to perform manual labor upon the streets. We believe there are sufficient allegations to render Amundson liable under the petition.

The principal question in this case, and the one upon which the parties have devoted a great portion of their briefs, and which evidently was the matter specially in the mind of the trial court is, whether the city of Lindsborg is liable in this action. The eighth paragraph of the petition is as follows:

"Plaintiff further says that the defendant, the city of Lindsborg, by its recognized city official, to wit, the mayor and councilmen thereof, in their official and corporate capacity rendered assistance, aid, comfort and support to defendant Amundson in his unlawful assault upon, and his scandalous conduct toward, this plaintiff; upheld and praised him, the said Amundson, in his actions; and the said city of Lindsborg in its corporate capacity did ratify the actions of the said city marshal in his office of city marshal, and by legally passing an order for the payment of an attorney for legal services rendered in the pretended legal proceeding instituted against this plaintiff, growing out of which were the false imprisonment, assault and battery, and inhuman and unlawful treatment herein related."

We believe the petition does not state a cause of action against the city. We cannot believe that it is within the power of a city to authorize its officers to perform an illegal act of the nature of the one complained of in this petition; and if the city has no power in the first place to authorize a police officer to commit such an unlawful act, it would have no power to ratify it after it had been performed. ( Calwell v. City of Boone, 51 Iowa 687.)

There is another reason which is of primary and vital importance and controlling in this action: The police officers of a city are not regarded as the servants or agents of the city; their duties are of a public nature;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • City of Meridian v. Beeman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 30, 1936
    ...54 Ga. 468; clark v. Atlanta, 62 Ga. 290; Cook v. Macon, 54 Ga. 468; 231 Ill. 223 83 N.E. 223, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1190; Peters v. Linsborg, 40 Kan. 654, 20 P. 490; Altvater v. Baltimore, 31 Md. 462; Hathway Everett, 205 Mass. 246, 91 N.E. 296; Worley v. Columbia, 88 Mo. 106; Woodnull v. Ne......
  • Jackson v. City of Kansas City
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • April 6, 1984
    ...(1 Beach, Pub.Corp., §§ 741-744; 2 Dillon, Mun.Corp. 977-980; Lawson v. Seattle, 6 Wash. 184, 33 Pac. 347; Peters v. City of Lindsborg, 40 Kan. 654, 20 Pac. 490.)" 60 Kan. at 488, 57 P. 123. (Emphasis See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 491, comment f (1965); and Scott v. McGaugh, 211 ......
  • Lerch v. City of Duluth
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • January 16, 1903
    ...Trescott v. City of Waterloo, 26 F. 592; Trammell v. Town, 34 Ark. 105; Worley v. Inhabitants, 88 Mo. 106; Calwell v. City, supra; Peters v. City, 40 Kan. 654. No liability for of exercising public power with reference to health. Hughes v. County, 147 N.Y. 49; Sherbourne v. Yuba, 21 Cal. 11......
  • Bradford v. Mahan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • April 10, 1976
    ...who needlessly, maliciously or wantonly injure a person even when they are engaged in a governmental function. (Peters v. City of Lindsberg, 40 Kan. 654, 20 P. 490; Pfannenstiel v. Doerfler, 152 Kan. 479, 105 P.2d 886; Bukaty v. Berglund, 179 Kan. 259, 294 P.2d 228; and Anno: Police-Liabili......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT