Seitner v. Ransom

• Citation: 85 N.W. 158,82 Minn. 404
• Parties: SEITNER v. RANSOM et al.
• Decision Date: 08 February 1901
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

82 Minn. 404

85 N.W. 158

SEITNER

v.RANSOM et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 8, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Freeborn county; Nathan Kingsley, Judge.

Action by Mary A. Seitner against A. E. Ransom and others. Action dismissed as to certain defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

In attempting to direct the movements of a team upon a public highway within a city, a police officer caused an injury to the occupant of the wagon. Held, under the testimony, that it was a question for the jury whether the officer was at that time acting as a private person, or in the capacity of police officer, and whether more force was used than necessary. Held, if the officer was acting within his official capacity, then the sureties on his official bond are liable for the result of his unnecessary conduct. Held, it was error to dismiss the case as to the sureties. Henry A. Morgan and H. H. Dunn, for appellant.

C. C. Carlson, for respondents.

LEWIS, J.

Action to recover damages against defendant A. E. Ransom and his sureties for injuries claimed to have been inflicted by him while acting in his official capacity of chief of police of the city of Albert Lea. At the close of the testimony on the trial below the court dismissed the action as to the sureties, and the only question involved in this appeal is the liability of the sureties. The condition in the bond is as follows: ‘Now, therefore, if the said A. E. Ransom shall well and does faithfully discharge all his duties as such chief of police in and for said city of Albert Lea, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect.’ The plaintiff and her husband resided on a farm about 5 miles from Albert Lea. Upon one of the main thoroughfares leading into the city there is a bridge about 30 feet long, over a stream which is within the city limits. This bridge is separated into two driveways, divided by a wooden rail. On the evening of the 6th day of August, 1899, plaintiff and her husband were riding into the city in a one-seated light wagon, the husband driving a rather spirited team of horses. As they approached the bridge they started to drive upon the southerly driveway, instead of the one to the north, which was on the right as they were traveling. The reason assigned for turning to the left was that there was a hole in the approach on the right-hand side. As the horses stepped onto the bridge, Ransom and his wife had advanced from the other end of the bridge on the same driveway, riding on bicycles. Ransom called out, ‘Turn to the right,’ but the team advanced. Ransom dismounted, turned his wheel over to his wife, advanced with threatening language, took the team by the bits, jerked the horses back so...