Taylor v. N.Y. & L. B. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1910
• Citation: 78 A. 169,80 N.J.L. 282
• Parties: TAYLOR v. NEW YORK & L. B. R. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

78 A. 169

80 N.J.L. 282

TAYLOR

v. NEW YORK & L. B. R. CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 14, 1910.

Syllabus by the Court.

Error to Supreme Court.

Action by Joseph Taylor against the New York & Long Branch Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

John S. Applegate & Son, for plaintiff in error.

Aaron E. Johnston, for defendant in error.

PITNEY, Ch. This was an action of tort for false imprisonment, wherein the verdict and judgment went in favor of the plaintiff. The sole ground relied upon for reversal is the refusal by the trial judge of a motion, made at the close of the evidence, that a verdict be directed in favor of the defendant. The proofs ended to show that in July, 1907, the railroad company obtained a judgment against Taylor before a justice of the peace of the county of Monmouth, sitting in the small cause court, in an action of tort, for $1 damages and $4.11 costs, and that on July 9, 1908, a writ of execution was issued thereon against the goods and chattels of Taylor, the writ commanding the officer, for want of sufficient goods and chattels, to take the body of Taylor and convey him to the county jail. This writ was placed in the hands of one Wilson, a constable, for execution, and by virtue thereof he took Taylor into custody at the Asbury Park station of the railroad company, being assisted in so doing by one Lankinau. Handcuffs were put upon the prisoners wrists, but were removed shortly afterwards; and subsequently he was taken by the constable to the office of the superintendent of the railroad company at Long Branch, about seven miles from As bury Park. There, by order of the superintendent, he was set at liberty. The plaintiff's contentions were that the judgment upon which the execution was issued had been already satisfied, so that the execution was invalid; that, assuming the execution was valid, the use of handcuffs amounted to unreasonable and excessive force: that the arrest was warranted only by want of sufficient goods and chattels out of which to make the judgment debt, and that Taylor owned and was in visible possession of personal property more than sufficient for this purpose; and that without authority the constable took Taylor to Long Branch, contrary to the direction of the writ of execution, which required him to be taken to the county jail. Without spending time upon the other points, we think the taking of Taylor to Long Branch was clearly in excess of the warrant of the writ. But the railroad company was responsible for this only on the ground that Lankinau participated in it. and that Lankinau was in this behalf an agent of the defendant, acting within the scope of his authority.

It is argued for the plaintiff in error that there was no evidence that Lankinau directed or in any way instigated Wilson to take Taylor to Long Branch. This contention is clearly untenable; there being testimony from which the jury might reasonably infer that Lankinau fully cooperated with Wilson in the arrest, and assented to, if he did not suggest, the taking of Taylor to Long Branch. Lankinau's agency for the railroad company in the matter was not so clearly demonstrated, but we think there was sufficient evidence to require the submission of the question to the jury.

It appeared from the evidence that Lankinau was a "state detective"—...