Taft v. Hyatt

• Decision Date: 12 April 1919
• Docket Number: 21,879
• Citation: 180 P. 213,105 Kan. 35
• Parties: B. L. TAFT et al., Appellees, v. WILLIAM S. HYATT, Appellee, and THOMAS A. MURRAY et al., Appellants
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

180 P. 213

105 Kan. 35

B. L. TAFT et al., Appellees, v. WILLIAM S. HYATT, Appellee, and THOMAS A. MURRAY et al., Appellants

No. 21,879

Supreme Court of Kansas

April 12, 1919

Decided January, 1919.

Appeal from Labette district court; ELMER C. CLARK, judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1.REWARD -- Apprehension of Criminal -- Conflicting Claimants of Reward--Proper Case for Bill of Interpleader.Plaintiffs who had offered a reward for the apprehension of a criminal, alleged that they were threatened with litigation by different parties claiming the reward; that some one or more of the defendants were entitled to receive it, and asked that defendants be required to set up their respective claims to the fund, which plaintiffs brought into court.Held, a proper case for an action in the nature of a bill of interpleader.

2.SAME--Informant Whose Information Did Not Lead to the Arrest Not Entitled to Reward.After the reward had been offered, an attorney at law was notified that the accused person desired to see him and was told where the latter could be found.Knowing of the offer of the reward, he went to the hiding place of the accused and talked with him for an hour and a half, but failing to agree upon a fee for defending him, went to the county attorney's office and arranged for the arrest of the accused person and then claimed the right to the reward.Before the officer to whom his information was conveyed arrived at the place where the accused had been, the latter, with the aid of friends, had surrendered himself to the chief of police, who took him to the county jail and placed him in the custody of the sheriff.Held, that, under the circumstances, the attorney is not entitled to the reward, and a judgment in his favor is reversed.

3.SAME--Private Offer of Reward Not an Enforceable Contract until Accepted.A private offer of reward for the apprehension of an accused person stands, as a general rule, upon a different footing from an offer made by virtue of a statute.When accepted, the offer becomes a contract; until it is accepted by some person, who upon the strength of the offer takes some steps to earn the reward, there is no contract; and where a claimant of the reward was not aware that it had been offered until after he had acted, he is not entitled to claim the reward.

4.SAME--Chief of Police May Not Claim Reward for Performing His Official Duty.A chief of police, whose duty it is to make an arrest of fugitives from justice or persons charged with or suspected of crimes, is not entitled to maintain an action to recover a reward offered by private individuals for the apprehension of the person, for the reason that public policy does not permit an officer to claim a reward for merely doing his duty.(Thacker v. Smith, 103 Kan. 641, 175 P. 983.)

5.SAME--Interpleader Deposits Reward in Court--Evidence Shows No One Entitled to Receive It--Final Judgment Directed by Supreme Court.In an action in the nature of a bill of interpleader to determine conflicting claims of defendants to a reward offered by the plaintiffs for the apprehension of a criminal, where the court finds in favor of one defendant and, on appeal, the judgment is reversed because public policy prevents some of the defendants from accepting the reward, and the other defendants are shown not to be entitled to receive it, this court has power to end the litigation (Civ. Code, § 581,Gen. Stat. 1915, § 7485), and will order the judgment reversed and the cause sent back with directions to render judgment against all the defendants, and after the costs have been paid, to return the balance of the money to the plaintiffs.

Archie D. Neale, of Chetopa, for the appellants.

W. D. Atkinson, and W. A. Disch, both of Parsons, for appelleesB. L. Taft et al.

E. L. Burton, C. V. Rice, and William S. Hyatt, all of Parsons, for appelleeWilliam S. Hyatt.

OPINION

PORTER, J.:

The controversy is between rival claimants for a reward offered for the apprehension of a criminal.The suit is an equitable one instituted by the persons who offered the reward and who alleged that they were threatened with litigation by different parties claiming it; that one or more of the defendants were entitled to the money, which the plaintiffs brought into court; and asked that defendants be required to set up their respective claims.

On May 16, 1917, it became known in the city of Parsons that Agnes Smith, the wife of Dr. Asa Smith, had been assaulted, and that a negro physician by the name of Robert E. Smith was suspected of the crime.(The victim of the assault died, and Robert E. Smith was charged with and convicted of murder in the first degree.The judgment was affirmed.The State v. Smith,103 Kan. 148, 174 P. 551.)

The plaintiffs are Dr. Asa Smith, husband of the murdered woman, and certain individuals who are members of the A. H. T.A.They caused to be published and circulated an offer of $ 750 reward "for the arrest or information that will lead to" the arrest of the accused.

As to the claims of the defendant, William S. Hyatt, the findings of fact are, in substance, these: Hyatt is an attorney at law with an office in the city of Parsons.Another attorney notified him that R. E. Smith desired to see him, and told him where Smith could be found.During the afternoon of May 17, 1917, Hyatt went to the hiding place of the accused in the city of Parsons, in compliance with the directions that had been given him, and there found Smith.The two talked together for an hour or more, but were unable to reach an agreement as to the employment of Hyatt to defend Smith.There is a finding that the relation of attorney and client never existed between them at any time, and that Hyatt came away without being employed.Shortly before he went to see Smith, Hyatt learned that the reward had been offered, and after returning from his interview, he went to the office of the county attorney and told him where Smith could be found, and an arrangement was made to have the deputy sheriff go to the place for the purpose of arresting Smith.The deputy sheriff was called, and with Hyatt drove to the place where Smith had been left by Hyatt earlier in the afternoon, when they discovered that Smith was not there, but had been taken away by the other defendants.The court further found that Hyatt gave the first information to the proper officers which would lead to the arrest of Smith, after the offer of the reward had been made, and that the information was given more than an hour previous to the time Smith was removed by the other defendants from the house where he had been hiding; that Hyatt's purpose in giving the information to the county attorney and the deputy sheriff was to obtain the reward offered by the plaintiffs; and that the fact that Smith was not arrested from the information given by Hyatt was due to no fault or neglect of Hyatt.As a conclusion of law, the court held that Hyatt was entitled to the reward.

The findings with reference to the other claimants are, that Clarence Glass and Charles C. Edwards went to Thomas A. Murray, the chief of police of the city of Parsons, shortly after six o'clock on the afternoon of May 17, 1917, and requested Murray to go in a closed cab to a certain place in the city and take charge of Smith and deliver him to the jail at Oswego.Murray complied with the request and went to the place directed, where he found the accused, together with the defendants Glass, Edwards, Tyson, Cook, and Ransom.All of them got into the cab with the chief of police, and the party went to Oswego, where Smith was delivered to the sheriff of Labette county.Before leaving Parsons, and just as the party got into the cab with the chief of police, the latter told the accused to consider himself under arrest, and informed him of the intention to deliver him at the county jail at Oswego.The evidence shows that the defendants who secured the services of the chief of police in taking the accused to Oswego were all members of the lodge of colored Masons to which the accused belonged.The court found that Smith expressed to them his fears of mob violence, and it was agreed that he would give himself into their custody, and they agreed to protect him; and that none of these defendants had heard of the offer of reward at the time they called Murray, the chief of police, to their assistance.Murray testified that he had heard of the reward before he arrested Smith, and that the reason he placed him under arrest and took him to Oswego was partly to earn the reward and partly to protect Smith from mob violence.The court found that it was the duty of Murray, as chief of police, to make arrest of fugitives from justice; that at the time of receiving Smith into custody Murray was not armed with a warrant or other process for the arrest; and that Smith had not committed any offense within the view of the chief of police.

The court found in favor of Hyatt and against the other defendants.The costs were directed to be paid out of the fund, and the balance of the $ 750 was ordered paid to Hyatt.The other defendants bring the case here for review.

Hyatt testified that he was informed by another attorney that Smith wanted to see him; that this occurred about half past eleven o'clock, and that between that time and four o'clock in the afternoon, while on his way to see the accused, he learned that a reward was offered--"a big reward" that when he arrived at the place, Smith opened the door and told him to come in."We had considerable conversation, lasting an hour and a half.I then went from the house and went to the county attorney's office" and told the county attorney "that I knew where Doctor Smith was and wanted him...