Simpson v. Poindexter
| Decision Date | 02 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 41940,41940 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | Wendell Wayne SIMPSON & Wife v. Earl F. POINDEXTER, Dennis Lewis & the City of Natchez. |
Carl A. Chadwick, Natchez, William L. Koerber, Vidalia, La., for appellants.
Berger, Callon & Zuccaro, C. L. Collins, Natchez, for appellees.
On May 28, 1960, Wendell Wayne Simpson and wife, Mrs. Wendell Wayne Simpson, filed their declaration against Earl F. Poindexter, Dennis Lewis and the City of Natchez. The declaration alleged that Poindexter and Lewis were policemen employed by the City of Natchez; that the duties of the policemen required them to serve not only as policemen but also to perform certain corporate functions; that for several months prior to the occurrence mentioned in the declaration the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the city were apprised of, or should have been apprised of, the fact that said Poindexter and Lewis were dangerously hot-headed, belligerent, incompetent and unsuited for their employment.
The declaration alleged that on or about June 1, 1959, plaintiff, Wendell Wayne Simpson, was arrested by said policemen on a misdemeanor charge, and while in the custody of said officers, the plaintiff, after arriving at the city jail and within the confines of the jail, was wilfully, without cause, justification, or provocation, severely and brutally beaten by said policemen, they using blackjacks, police sticks, clubs or fists, and that said beating occurred while the said Simpson was in a defenseless and helpless condition. After alleging his injuries, it further charged that because of said injuries the said Simpson now ambulates with a hemiplegic gait with great difficulty; is no longer able to perform work of any nature; is unable to lead a normal life, suffers extreme anguish, humiliation, frustration and despondency, and is in constant agonizing pain and suffering. It alleged that the said policemen and the city were liable and sought to recover damages for the said Simpson in the amount of $240,000.
In the same declaration, it was alleged that the injuries to the plaintiff, Wendell Wayne Simpson, had caused the other plaintiff, his wife, damages in the amount of $50,000, including loss of consortium, mental anguish, frustration and despondency. Judgment was sought against all the defendants for the said sum of $240,000 in favor of the husband and $50,000 in favor of the wife.
The City of Natchez filed a general demurrer, which was sustained, and the plaintiffs declining to amend, the declaration, insofar as the City of Natchez is concerned, was dismissed and an appeal granted to this Court.
The defendant policemen filed a motion to strike the declaration because it contained a misjoinder of causes of action. The two policemen also demurred, assigning as grounds that (1) plaintiff, Mrs. Wendell Wayne Simpson, states no cause of action; (2) the plaintiff, Wendell Wayne Simpson, states no cause of action and (3) the declaration states a misjoinder of causes of action.
The plaintiffs thereupon filed a motion alleging that the motion to strike and the demurrer of the two policemen were general, indefinite and uncertain; that the policemen did not specify what causes had been improperly joined, and consequently plaintiffs were unable to properly consider the merit thereof.
The matter came on for hearing before the court on July 12, 1960, and an order was entered reciting that the matter was heard on separate demurrer of the two policemen and on the plaintiffs' motion for a more specific assignment of cause, and the court having considered same, sustained the demurrer and gave the plaintiffs the right within thirty days to amend the declaration. On November 7, 1960, a final order was entered reciting that the thirty days granted plaintiffs to amend had expired...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thill v. Modern Erecting Company, 41337
...Baird v. Cincinnati, N.O. and Tex. P.R.C. (Ky. App.) 368 S.W.2d 172; Potter v. Schafter, 161 Maine 340, 211 A.2d 891; Simpson v. Poindexter, 241 Miss. 854, 133 So.2d 286, 134 So.2d 445; Snodgrass v. Cherry-Burrell Corp., 103 N.H. 56, 164 A.2d 579; Roseberry v. Starkovich, 73 N.M. 211, 387 P......
-
Igneri v. Cie. de Transports Oceaniques
...O. Ry., 194 F. Supp. 848, (E.D.Mich.1961); Hartman v. Cold Spring Granite Co., 247 Minn. 515, 77 N.W.2d 651 (1956); Simpson v. Poindexter, 241 Miss. 854, 133 So.2d 286 (1961). 10 E. g., Smith v. United Constr. Workers, 271 Ala. 42, 122 So.2d 153; Ripley v. Ewell, 61 So.2d 420 (Fla.); Larocc......
-
Burton v. Waller
...Anderson v. Vanderslice, 240 Miss. 55, 126 So.2d 522 (1961). Accord, Twiner v. Jenkins, 257 So.2d 488 (Miss.1972); Simpson v. Poindexter, 241 Miss. 854, 133 So.2d 286 (1961); City of Hattiesburg v. Buckalew, 240 Miss. 323, 127 So.2d 428 (1961); Bates v. City of McComb, 181 Miss. 336, 179 So......
-
Hamilton v. Chaffin
...solely in matters pertaining to the police powers of the city, e.g., Twiner v. Jenkins,257 So.2d 488 (Miss.1972); Simpson v. Poindexter, 241 Miss. 854, 133 So.2d 286 (1961); Anderson v. Vanderslice, 240 Miss. 55, 126 So.2d 522 (1961). The fact that the City of Booneville secured comprehensi......