Snead v. Bonnoil

• Decision Date: 26 March 1901
• Citation: 166 N.Y. 325,59 N.E. 899
• Parties: SNEAD v. BONNOIL.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

166 N.Y. 325

59 N.E. 899

SNEAD

v.BONNOIL.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 26, 1901.

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, First department.

Action by Harry V. Snead against Maurice Bonnoil.From a judgment of the appellate division affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff(63 N. Y. Supp. 553), defendant appeals.Affirmed.

William B. Crowell, for appellant.

Robert L. Harrison, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

This is an action for false imprisonment, wherein the plaintiff has recovered judgment upon a verdict of $500, which has been affirmed at the appellate division.It appears that two police officers, of whom the defendant was one, without a warrant, arrested the plaintiff upon the suspicion that he was engaged in the commission of a felony.According to the plaintiff's evidence, it occurred in this wise: On the 8th of November, 1893, he took, in a satchel, some articles of silver and jewelry, which were rightfully in his possession, to a pawn shop, and asked for a loan of money.Not obtaining upon them as much as he had asked, he left the shop, and with his articles was returning to his home, when the police officers came up behind him, and touched him on the shoulder, saying, ‘What have you got in that bag?’The plaintiff turned, saw two men, who were strangers to him, and replied, ‘None of your business; take your hand off from my shoulder.’The defendant then said, ‘We are officers, and you are under arrest.’The plaintiff asked, ‘What for?’It was replied, ‘Well, we want to know what you have got in that bag.’The plaintiff asked them to show their authority for arresting him, and offered to take them to his house, and to prove to them that the property in the bag belonged to him.The men refused, with abusive language and treatment, handcuffed him, and took him to police headquarters.He was locked up for the night, and on the morning of November 9th was arraigned by the officers before a magistrate upon the charge of being a ‘suspicious person.’At their request, he was remanded until the following morning of November 10th, when he was rearraigned upon a charge of carrying concealed weapons, in violation of a corporation ordinance.In fact, he had carried a pistol, which was taken from his pocket, and upon this latter charge he was subsequently convicted and punished.There was some conflict in the evidence given by the plaintiff and by the defendant as to the occurrences, but the jury believed the former's version, as their verdict proved.

The verdict was rendered upon sufficient evidence, and, necessarily, established the facts that the defendant had arrested the plaintiff; that the arrest was for a felony, and not for a misdemeanor, in the violation of a municipal ordinance; and that the defendant did not have reasonable cause for believing that the plaintiff had committed a felony.The affirmance by the appellate division of the judgment entered upon this verdict, although by a court divided in opinion, concludes us as to these facts, and the only question of law for our consideration is whether, as established, there had been that illeged detention of the plaintiff's person which made out a case of false imprisonment.

False imprisonment has been well defined to be a trespass committed by one man against the person of another, by unlawfully arresting him and detaining him without any legal authority.Add.Torts, p. 552.Where the detention is illegal, the action will lie, without regard to the innocence of the defendant in his intentions.It is an important principle of our political institutions that every person is entitled to immunity from arrest except by authority and for cause.A...