Callahan v. Searles

New York Supreme Court

Callahan v. Searles

28 N.Y.S. 904, 85 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 238, 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 214, 78 Hun 238

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 14, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 28 N.Y.S. 904 (Callahan v. Searles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Callahan v. Searles, 28 N.Y.S. 904, 85 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 238, 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 214, 78 Hun 238 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PRATT, J.

This is an action of false imprisonment, and the counsel for the defendant well says, in his brief, that such a case would not be likely to happen in a lifetime. That such a coincidence should happen is remarkable, but I think it is clear that an arrest and detention or imprisonment were sufficiently proved to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff. The fact that the officer went into the presence of the plaintiff, inquired about the stolen property, showed [905]*905his shield, and told the plaintiff to come along with him to defendant’s, was an arrest. Even if plaintiff was not arrested by a distinct order of defendant, the act of the officer was ratified afterwards at the store where the defendant ordered plaintiff to be detained until it was proved that the shoes had been a few doors from defendant’s store. A technical false imprisonment was proved, within well-settled rules of law. Bissell v. Gold, 1 Wend. 210; Searls v. Viets, 2 Thomp. & C. 224; Mowry v. Chase, 100 Mass. 79-85; Churk v. Starin, 47 Hun, 345. We should have been much better satisfied with the verdict if it had been much smaller, but we are unable to say that it is so excessive as to warrant us in settine it aside. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PRATT, J.

This is an action of false imprisonment, and the counsel for the defendant well says, in his brief, that such a case would not be likely to happen in a lifetime. That such a coincidence should happen is remarkable, but I think it is clear that an arrest and detention or imprisonment were sufficiently proved to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff. The fact that the officer went into the presence of the plaintiff, inquired about the stolen property, showed [905]*905his shield, and told the plaintiff to come along with him to defendant’s, was an arrest. Even if plaintiff was not arrested by a distinct order of defendant, the act of the officer was ratified afterwards at the store where the defendant ordered plaintiff to be detained until it was proved that the shoes had been a few doors from defendant’s store. A technical false imprisonment was proved, within well-settled rules of law. Bissell v. Gold, 1 Wend. 210; Searls v. Viets, 2 Thomp. & C. 224; Mowry v. Chase, 100 Mass. 79-85; Churk v. Starin, 47 Hun, 345. We should have been much better satisfied with the verdict if it had been much smaller, but we are unable to say that it is so excessive as to warrant us in settine it aside. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.Y.S. 904, 85 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 238, 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 214, 78 Hun 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callahan-v-searles-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack