Spencer v. Cramblett

Supreme Court of Kansas

Spencer v. Cramblett

44 P. 985, 56 Kan. 794, 1896 Kan. LEXIS 98

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 9, 1896

DocketNo. 8128

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 P. 985 (Spencer v. Cramblett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spencer v. Cramblett, 44 P. 985, 56 Kan. 794, 1896 Kan. LEXIS 98 (kan 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Allen, J. :

Defendant in error brought suit against plaintiff in error and one Fred I. Boies, alleging that the defendants maliciously, and without probable cause, caused him to be arrested and confined in the jail of Edwards county under a warrant duly issued by a justice of the peace; that the prosecution was dismissed; that he had been subjected to loss of health, mental anguish, and greatly injured in his business and reputation, and asked judgment for $5,-000 damages.

Although it is argued that the petition states a cause of action for false imprisonment, it is very clear that it does not, but does state one for malicious prosecution. The jury awarded the plaintiff $2,500 damages— $200 for damages to business, and $2,300 for damage to reputation — against the defendant Spencer only. Damages to reputation were properly allowed, and we cannot say that the amount is excessive. The charge on which the plaintiff was arrested was that .he had given a chattel mortgage to the Edwards [795]*795County Bank, of ■which Spencer was president, on certain personal property which was subject to a prior mortgage, without referring to the same in the mortgage to the bank. It appears that Cramblett was indebted to the bank in a considerable sum. The mortgage was given to secure an existing indebtedness, and Cramblett testifies that the bank was fully informed as to the existence of the prior mortgage before the mortgage to it was executed. There is evidence tending to show that the arrest was made for the purpose of extorting money from Cramblett on his indebtedness to the bank, and that Spencer fully understood that in giving the chattel mortgage Cramblett had not violated the criminal law. The case seems to have been fairly tried. The objections to the introduction of testimony were not tenable. The instructions appear fair, and while the award of damages is somewhat liberal, the evidence established a proper case for exemplary damages.

The judgment is affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Allen, J. :

Defendant in error brought suit against plaintiff in error and one Fred I. Boies, alleging that the defendants maliciously, and without probable cause, caused him to be arrested and confined in the jail of Edwards county under a warrant duly issued by a justice of the peace; that the prosecution was dismissed; that he had been subjected to loss of health, mental anguish, and greatly injured in his business and reputation, and asked judgment for $5,-000 damages.

Although it is argued that the petition states a cause of action for false imprisonment, it is very clear that it does not, but does state one for malicious prosecution. The jury awarded the plaintiff $2,500 damages— $200 for damages to business, and $2,300 for damage to reputation — against the defendant Spencer only. Damages to reputation were properly allowed, and we cannot say that the amount is excessive. The charge on which the plaintiff was arrested was that .he had given a chattel mortgage to the Edwards [795]*795County Bank, of ■which Spencer was president, on certain personal property which was subject to a prior mortgage, without referring to the same in the mortgage to the bank. It appears that Cramblett was indebted to the bank in a considerable sum. The mortgage was given to secure an existing indebtedness, and Cramblett testifies that the bank was fully informed as to the existence of the prior mortgage before the mortgage to it was executed. There is evidence tending to show that the arrest was made for the purpose of extorting money from Cramblett on his indebtedness to the bank, and that Spencer fully understood that in giving the chattel mortgage Cramblett had not violated the criminal law. The case seems to have been fairly tried. The objections to the introduction of testimony were not tenable. The instructions appear fair, and while the award of damages is somewhat liberal, the evidence established a proper case for exemplary damages.

The judgment is affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 P. 985, 56 Kan. 794, 1896 Kan. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-cramblett-kan-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack