Williams v. Franzoni, Civ. A. No. 1568.
| Decision Date | 14 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1568. |
| Citation | 120 F. Supp. 444 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. FRANZONI. |
Abatiell, Radigan & Delliveneri, Rutland, Vt., for plaintiff.
Christopher A. Webber, Rutland, Vt., for defendant.
This is an action for false imprisonment based, according to the complaint, upon the following circumstances: Plaintiff, an enlisted member of the Armed Forces of the United States, was arrested by two Deputy Sheriffs of Rutland County of the State of Vermont, on writs of attachment and capias (mesne process) in two civil actions issuing out of Rutland County Court. After confinement for twenty-two days, the plaintiff was released by order of the County Court following habeas corpus proceedings. This action is brought against the Sheriff of Rutland County for the action of his deputies.
Plaintiff bases his complaint on an alleged violation by the deputies of 10 U.S. C.A. § 610, which provides, in part, as follows: "No enlisted man shall, during his term of service, be arrested on mesne process, or taken or charged in execution for any debt, unless it was contracted before his enlistment, and amounted to $20. when first contracted." The latter half of the statute is not here involved, since the process on which plaintiff was arrested arose out of post-enlistment claims and exceeded the statutory amount. In effect, plaintiff's entire claim rests on the clause "No enlisted man shall, during his term of service, be arrested on mesne process * * *."
The defendant has moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the statute affords no remedy to plaintiff against the defendant he has elected to sue.
It cannot be doubted that in Vermont the County Sheriff is liable for the misfeasance of his deputies. Section 3476, Vermont Statutes (1947). The only question here is whether, in the light of the Federal Statute, there was a misfeasance for which the Sheriff is liable.
It appears to be the general rule that an officer is justified in effecting an arrest when the capias process upon which he acts is valid upon its face. Where the process proceeds from a court having authority to issue such process, when the process is legal in formal details and has nothing upon its face which would fairly warn the server that it is defective, the officer is protected from irregularities existing behind the process. Pierson v. Gale, 8 Vt. 509; 22 Am.Jur. 400.
The form of a writ of attachment and capias is set forth as Form 1 in Section 10,610 Vermont Statutes (1947). Directed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleming v. McEnany
...justification for the officer who serves or otherwise executes it. In Williams v. Franzoni, 217 F.2d 533 (2 Cir. 1954), aff'g 120 F.Supp. 444 (D.Vt.1954), we affirmed an order dismissing before trial a complaint which sought to recover damages from a sheriff whose deputies had served an all......
-
Williams v. Franzoni, 55
...from lawful authority" and under Section 1536 he is liable to a fine and for damages if he fails so to do. This appeal is from an order, 120 F.Supp. 444, granting the defendant's motion, before trial, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and, as jurisdiction is ba......
-
Morrill v. Hamel
...133; Oakley Country Club v. Long, 325 Mass. 109, 112, 89 N.E.2d 260, 14 A.L.R.2d 377. Our conclusion finds support in Williams v. Franzoni, D.C.Vt., 120 F.Supp. 444; Id., 2 Cir., 217 F.2d 533. There the plaintiff, an enlisted member 2 of the United States Air Force, was arrested by the defe......