Whitten v. Bennett

• Decision Date: 02 March 1898
• Docket Number: 62.
• Citation: 86 F. 405
• Parties: WHITTEN v. BENNETT et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

86 F. 405

WHITTEN v. BENNETT et al.

No. 62.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 2, 1898

William H. Baker, for plaintiff in error.

William L. Bennett, for defendants in error.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error by the plaintiff in the court below to review a judgment for the defendants upon demurrers to the complaint.

The complaint, after stating facts showing the requisite diversity of citizenship between the parties to confer jurisdiction upon the court, and averring the defendant Bennett to be the duly-authorized executor of the last will and testament of Tilton E. Doolittle, deceased, alleges in substance that at a term of the superior court of New Haven county, in Connecticut, the grand jury found an indictment against the plaintiff, charging him with the crime of murder in the second degree; that the grand jury did not intend to indict the plaintiff, but were misled into indorsing the indictment as a true bill by the artifice and misrepresentation of Doolittle, who was the prosecuting attorney of New Haven county; that Doolittle procured the indictment maliciously, and for the purpose of extorting money from the plaintiff; that upon the application of Doolittle the governor of Connecticut granted a requisition upon the governor of Massachusetts, in which state the plaintiff then was, for the surrender of the plaintiff as a fugitive from justice, and the governor of Massachusetts issued an executive warrant for the arrest and rendition of the plaintiff, and designated the defendant Leete to execute it; and that the plaintiff, by the instruction of Doolittle was arrested by the defendant Leete and imprisoned upon said warrant, and in consequence thereof sustained damages, etc.

We are of the opinion that the complaint does not state any cause of action. It does not allege that Doolittle actually used the indictment and the warrant of rendition for any oppressive purpose, although it avers that he procured them for the purpose of such use. The process was valid and lawful upon its face, and no use was actually made of it except such as was strictly authorized by it. The real grievance of the plaintiff arises from the conduct of Doolittle in procuring an indictment against him without evidence, and which the grand jury did not intend to find and if the plaintiff had chosen to have the indictment quashed, or the prosecution terminated in any other mode, he would have been entitled to maintain his action of malicious prosecution. The case is essentially like that of Coupal v. Ward, 106 Mass. 189, where it is held that, when one has procured the arrest and imprisonment of another on a lawful warrant, he is not liable to an action of assault or false imprisonment, although he obtained the warrant by misrepresentation.

The complaint does not state a cause of action for false imprisonment. Arrest under a warrant, valid in form, issued by a competent authority upon sufficient complaint, is not false imprisonment. It cannot be attacked collaterally, and is a perfect shield, in such an action, to the officer and the party who has procured its issuance....