The Town of Laurel v. Blue
| Decision Date | 16 April 1891 |
| Docket Number | 91 |
| Citation | 27 N.E. 301,1 Ind.App. 128 |
| Parties | THE TOWN OF LAUREL v. BLUE |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Franklin Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed with cost.
S. E Urmston and I. Carter, for appellant.
F. A Alexander, for appellee.
William R. Blue sued the town of Laurel for damages resulting from false imprisonment.
The complaint states that in July, 1887, one Burris was the marshal of the town of Laurel, and as such officer he wrongfully and unlawfully arrested the appellee without a warrant and under the provisions of an ordinance theretofore adopted by the town trustees, but which was wholly without authority and void; that said marshal took the appellee in custody and wrongfully and unlawfully restrained him of his liberty for a long space of time, much to his disgrace and humiliation, whereby he was damaged.
Two paragraphs of complaint were filed, and both proceed upon the general theory that the town corporation was responsible for the tortious act of the marshal in arresting the appellee.
The ordinance under which the arrest is alleged to have been made is set out in the complaint. It provides that whoever, being in a condition of intoxication, shall stagger, reel or lie down upon any street or alley in the town of Laurel, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than ten nor less than five dollars.
A demurrer was filed to the complaint, and overruled, and the appellant excepted.
The cause was put at issue and tried by a jury. A verdict was returned in favor of the appellee, and judgment entered upon the verdict.
A motion for a new trial was filed by the appellant, and overruled.
Errors are assigned properly presenting for decision the ruling of the trial court upon the demurrer to the complaint and the motion for a new trial.
The controlling question in this case is, can the town of Laurel be held responsible for an unlawful arrest by its marshal, under an invalid ordinance and without a warrant?
The question of the responsibility of a municipality for the tortious act of one of its officers must depend for its solution upon the character of the act the officer was engaged in at the time of the commission of the tort. Cities and towns incorporated under the laws of this State have two general classes of functions, which may be denominated governmental and domestic, or corporate.
All laws and ordinances intended to secure the peace and good order, or to preserve the health and morals, of the public, are in the nature of police regulations, and are essentially governmental in their character. Their enactment and enforcement are functions of the sovereignty, and they are designed for the benefit of the public, as distinguished from the municipality.
In the distribution of the powers of government the Legislature has made municipal corporations special public agents, and delegated them with authority to a limited extent, to enact and...
To continue reading
Request your trial