Sparrow v. Bromage
| Decision Date | 19 January 1910 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SPARROW v. BROMAGE et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Lucien F. Burpee, Judge.
Action for false imprisonment by James C. Sparrow against Edward Bromage and one Moore. From a judgment for plaintiff against defendant Edward Bromage, after setting aside the verdict for plaintiff as to defendant Moore, defendant Edward Bromage appeals. Affirmed.
William M. Maltbie and William H. Leete, for appellant Bromage. William J. Reilley and Edward L. Steele, for appellee.
The plaintiff in his complaint charges the two defendants, of whom Bromage was the chief of police of the town of Enfield, and Moore a patrolman under him, with having unlawfully imprisoned him, and seeks damages from them therefor. A verdict of $800 was returned against both defendants. They thereupon filed a motion for a new trial upon the grounds that the verdict was excessive and against the evidence. The motion was granted as to Moore, and the verdict against him set aside. It was denied as to Bromage, and judgment entered against him for the amount of verdict. Bromage appeals, alleging that the court exceeded its power in taking this action. The sole question presented relates to this contention, which is based upon the propositions that the court in rendering judgment departed from the verdict, and that the appellant was injured by the course pursued, since it cannot be said that any judgment, or at least one for so large an amount, would have been rendered against him as a sole defendant.
Where two or more persons unite in an act which constitutes a wrong to another, intending at the time to commit it, or in doing it under circumstances which fairly charge them with intending the consequences which follow, they incur a joint and several liability for the acts of each and all of the joint participants. Cooley on Torts, 224; Sheldon v. Kibbe, 3 Conn. 214, 216, 8 Am. Dee. 176; Ayer v. Ashmead, 31 Conn. 447, 453, 83 Am. Dec. 154; Chapin v. Babcock, 67 Conn. 255, 256, 34 Atl. 1030; New Haven Trust Co. v. Doberty, 74 Conn. 353, 357, 50 Atl. 887. There is no apportionment of responsibility, and no right of contribution or indemnity between them. Cooley on Torts, 226; Bailey v. Bussing, 28 Conn. 455, 457; Whitaker v. Tatem, 48 Conn. 520, 521. One may be sued severally, or any or all together. Sheldon v. Kibbe, 3 Conn. 214, 216, 8 Am. Dec. 176. Where more than one is sued, a verdict or judgment may be rendered for or against any or all. Wyeman v. Deady, 79 Conn. 414, 417, 65 Atl. 129, 118 Am. St. Rep. 152. Where judgment is rendered against more than one, it is in legal effect several as well as joint. The liability continues to be a several one. Brockett v. Fair Haven & W. Ry. Co., 73 Conn. 428, 431, 47 Atl. 763; Chapin v. Babcock, 67 Conn. 255, 256, 34 Atl. 1039. The judgment may be reversed as against one or more and sustained as against others. Wilford v. Grant, Kirby, 114.
These well-settled principles as to the nature of the liability of joint tort-feasors, and the legal effect accorded to legal processes to enforce that liability, lead logically and naturally to the conclusion that, when a verdict is returned against several, the court may deal with it in its further proceedings as it might with verdicts returned against each in separate actions. And so it has been held, although authority to the contrary may be found. 1 Black on Judgments, § 207; Hayden v. Woods, 16 Neb. 306, 20 N. W. 345. Cases involving contract obligations, or concerning independent acts of negligence, of which several have been cited in support of the defendant's proposition, are obviously not in point To so deal with the verdict and set it aside as to some, and not as to others, is not to depart from it in the rendition of a judgment upon it against those others. Such a judgment pursues it in its legal aspect as a several verdict against each.
But it is said that possible harm might result to those against whom a judgment is thus rendered, for the reason that they might be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buder v. Fiske
...Va. 529, 46 S.E. 776; Ridgway v. Toland, 43 N.J.L. 585; Davis v. Walker, Tex.Civ.App., 233 S.W. 521; Sparrow v. Bromage, 83 Conn. 27, 74 A. 1070, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 209, 19 Ann.Cas. 796; Wright v. Churchman, 135 Ind. 683, 35 N.E. 835; Santa Barbara Live Stock & Farming Co. v. Thompson, 46 Cal.......
-
Miles v. Perry
...183 Conn. 470, 472, 441 A.2d 14 (1981), quoting Gutowski v. New Britain, 165 Conn. 50, 54, 327 A.2d 552 (1973); see Sparrow v. Bromage, 83 Conn. 27, 28, 74 A. 1070 (1910). If the evidence indicates that all defendants acted intentionally and in concert, each defendant will be vicariously li......
-
Hart, Nininger and Campbell Associates, Inc. v. Rogers, 5436
...183 Conn. 470, 472, 441 A.2d 14 (1981), quoting Gutowski v. New Britain, 165 Conn. 50, 54, 327 A.2d 552 (1973); see Sparrow v. Bromage, 83 Conn. 27, 28, 74 A. 1070 (1910). If the evidence indicates that all defendants acted intentionally and in concert, each defendant will be vicariously li......
-
Alvarez v. New Haven Register, Inc.
...or both of the tortfeasors and that either one would be liable for the full amount of the plaintiff's damages. Sparrow v. Bromage, 83 Conn. 27, 28-29, 74 A. 1070 (1910). We recently had the opportunity to explain this principle. "Prior to October 1, 1986, this state adhered to the rules of ......