Woodward v. Glidden

• Decision Date: 17 January 1885
• Citation: 33 Minn. 108
• Parties: OZRA M. WOODWARD <I>vs.</I> STEPHEN S. GLIDDEN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

33 Minn. 108

OZRA M. WOODWARDvs.

STEPHEN S. GLIDDEN.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 17, 1885

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

Moore & McCafferty, for appellant.

Melville & Kelley and J. M. Thompson, for respondent.

BERRY, J.

In Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co., 32 Minn. 217, we have recently had occasion to consider the principles by which the district courts should be governed in passing upon applications for new trials upon the ground of excessive damages, and also the principles by which this court should be governed in reviewing orders of the district courts granting or refusing new trials on the ground mentioned. The application of the views expressed in our opinion in that case to the facts of the case at bar leads us to believe that the verdict before us should have been set aside, and that the district court erred in refusing to set it aside and grant a new trial. The testimony goes to show that the plaintiff had disposed of his property under circumstances well calculated to excite suspicion of fraud towards his creditors, of whom the firm of Glidden, Griggs & Co., of which defendant was a member, was one; that one or more interviews occurred between him and defendant at the firm's place of business in St. Paul, in reference to plaintiff's indebtedness to the firm, in which defendant gave vent to his dissatisfaction with plaintiff's disposal of his property and his supposed subsequent inability to pay his debts, and at length, as the testimony, with some conflict as to details, tends to show, caused plaintiff to be taken into custody by a police officer and committed to the city lock-up, for the purpose, quite evidently, of forcing him to settle up his indebtedness to the firm. The arrest and commitment were made without process or any judicial proceedings, and were wholly and inexcusably illegal and unjustifiable. The defendant was detained in the lock-up for some three hours, from five or six o'clock in the afternoon of the 5th day of August, at which time he was arrested and committed, and was then released. Neither the arrest, commitment, nor detention were attended with any noise or violence, or with any circumstances of special indignity, or with any injury to plaintiff's person, property, or health; or, so far as appears, with any serious actual hurt or inconvenience, beyond the flagrant insult and injury to his feelings by the unlawful arrest, commitment, and confinement. The defendant is shown to be worth over (how much...