Smith v. Munch

Citation68 N.W. 19,65 Minn. 256
PartiesSMITH v MUNCH ET AL.
Decision Date23 June 1896
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. In an action for malicious prosecution, held that, upon the undisputed facts, the trial court should have held as a matter of law that the defendant had “probable cause” for instituting the prosecution.

2. What facts, and whether particular facts, constitute probable cause, is a question of law for the court; but what facts exist in a particular case, when there is a dispute in reference to them, is a question for the jury,-following former decisions.

3. The superintendent of a manufacturing corporation had general charge of the premises, of the business, and of the employés while at work. While plaintiff was on the premises, he caused his arrest without any warrant on a charge of disorderly conduct, committed several hours before, in unlawfully entering the factory, and attempting by threats to induce the employés to quit work. This act on part of the superintendent was done, not for his own interest or benefit, but in furtherance of the interest of the corporation by protecting its premises and employés from trespassers and intruders. Held, that the facts brought the case within the general rule that a master is responsible for the torts of his servant done with a view to the furtherance of the master's business, whether the same be done negligently or willfully, but within the scope of his agency; and that the corporation was liable for the act of its superintendent in directing the unlawful arrest.

4. The fact that the superintendent may have exceeded his actual authority, or even disobeyed his express instructions, does not alter the rule.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Hascal R. Brill, Judge.

Action by Franklin D. Smith, by Charles L. Smith, against Emil Munch and another. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial defendants appeal. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed.

Lewis & Hallam, for appellants.

Francis H. Clarke, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The complaint stated three causes of action against the defendants, one for false imprisonment and two for malicious prosecution, viz. for assault and battery, and for disorderly conduct. There being no evidence to connect either of the defendants with the prosecution of plaintiff for assault and battery, that cause of action was properly dismissed by the court, and hence need not be considered. The record discloses the following facts: The defendant Munch was the superintendent of the shops and yard of the Bohn Manufacturing Company, his duties being to look after the workmen and the work, and see to it that the business was properly attended to. On July 12, 1895, about 25 of the employés (mostly young men and boys) in the box factory “struck,” and quit work. Soon afterwards, and on the same day, plaintiff also went out, because he had been ordered to do work which one of the strikers had been doing. New hands were employed to take the place of the strikers. The next day, shortly before the noon hour, about 20 of these strikers congregated in the vicinity of the factory evidently waiting for 12 o'clock, in order to gain entrance into the building for the purpose of inducing the new employés to quit work, either by threats or persuasion. Plaintiff, in company with one of the strikers named Philander, in whose company he had been for most of the day, also came there, and either joined the crowd or waited in close proximity to it until the 12 o'clock whistle blew. Plaintiff's statement is that he went there at the request of his mother, to tell another boy who was working in the shop “not to go out on a strike.” Philander's story is that his purpose in going into the factory was “to see some of the old employés, and see what they thought of the new boys who started.” When the doors of the factory opened at 12 o'clock, the entire crowd, including plaintiff and Philander, entered the building. Considerable “fuss” ensued. One of the strikers assaulted a young boy who was employed in the shop. The term “scab” was applied to those who had taken the place of the strikers. Persuasion and some threats were used to induce the employés to quit. Some who had struck, and then gone back to work, were upbraided for doing so. Witnesses who claimed to have been eyewitnesses testified that the plaintiff intimidated one of the employés by swearing at him, and saying “if he did not get out of the factory he would fix him after five o'clock,” and called the boy a “scab.” Plaintiff himself admits, as also does his friend Philander, that he asked the boy “what he wanted to go out on the strike for, if he wanted to go back again” There was also evidence tending to show that, while the crowd was waiting outside, the plaintiff urged some small boys to strike one of the young employés who happened to come outside of the factory. Defendant Munch was not present during any part of this time, but when he returned late in the afternoon he was informed of the trouble which had occurred during his absence, and was informed by amployés who professed to be eyewitnesses, and who, so far as appears, were reliable persons, that plaintiff had committed substantially the acts as above stated. Munch testified that he honestly believed that these parties told the truth, and there is no direct evidence, and, so far as we can discover, no circumstantial evidence, tending to show that he did not believe these statements, or that he did not have reasonable ground for so doing. After these communications had been made to Munch, and about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, plaintiff, his friend Philander, and some others of the strikers, again came to the factory, as they testify, to get pay due them for work. Thereupon Munch called in a policeman, and directed him to arrest the plaintiff and one other of the ex-employés, for participating in the disturbance at noon. He gave this direction without having made any sworn complaint, or having procured any warrant for their arrest. The policeman obeyed the directions, arrested the plaintiff and the other boy, and required them to accompany him to the police station, where plaintiff was required to remain (but without being locked up) for about an hour and a half, until Philander went to plaintiff's home and obtained $15, which he deposited as security for his appearance on Monday morning; it then being Saturday evening. Plaintiff appeared in the police court on Monday morning, as also did Munch, with some witnesses from the factory. A formal complaint under the city ordinance was then made against plaintiff for disorderly conduct, which was sworn to by the boy who had been assaulted during the disturbance...

To continue reading

Request your trial
87 cases
  • Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • August 22, 1913
    ... ... the furtherance of the master's business, and not for a purpose personal to himself. Smith v. Munch, 65 Minn. 256, 68 N. W. 19; Sina v. Carlson, 120 Minn. 283, 139 N. W. 601 ...         4. It is contended that these statements ... ...
  • Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • August 22, 1913
  • Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • August 22, 1913
    ... ... his duty, with a view to [123 Minn. 32] the furtherance of ... the master's business, and not for a purpose personal to ... himself. Smith v. Munch, 65 Minn. 256, 68 N.W. 19; ... Sina v. Carlson, 120 Minn. 283, 139 N.W. 601 ...          4. It ... is contended that these ... ...
  • Kolka v. Jones
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1897
    ... ... N.W. 329; Closson v. Staples, 42 Vt. 209, 1 Am. Rep ... 316; Whipple v. Fuller, 11 Conn. 582, 29 Am. Dec ... 330; Marburg v. Smith, 11 Kan. 554; Cox v ... Taylor's Adm'r., 10 B. Monroe 17; Pangburn ... v. Bull, 1 Wend. 345; Easton v. Bank, 66 Cal ... 123; Woods v ... Torts 626; Stone v ... Crocker , 24 Pick. 81; Lancaster v ... Langston , (Ky.) 18 Ky. L. Rep. 299, 36 S.W. 521; ... Smith v. Munch , (Minn.) 65 Minn. 256, 68 ... N.W. 19; Bell v. Railway Co. (N. J. Sup.) ... 33 A. 211. In this case we have no doubt that Jones was, as a ... ...
  • 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