Vice v. Holley

Mississippi Supreme Court

Vice v. Holley

41 So. 7, 88 Miss. 572

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 41 So. 7 (Vice v. Holley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vice v. Holley, 41 So. 7, 88 Miss. 572 (Mich. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Mayes, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It was error in the circuit judge to give a peremptory instruction to find for defendant. At the time the arrest is said to have been made, Holley had no warrant for the arrest of Vice, and his incarceration was in another state from that in which the offense was charged to have been committed. Kelly was the man charged with crime at Pass Christian, Miss., and not Vice. Vice was locked up in jail in New Orleans one day, and again in Pass Christian for about twenty-four hours, protesting, as he says, all the while that he was not the man wanted, and giving the officer the names of various parties from whom he might ascertain his mistake; but no attention seems to have been paid to it by Holley. Any officer, in making an arrest, acts at his own peril, and if he makes a mistake, and arrests the wrong person, however innocently he may have acted, he is liable, unless the party complaining has brought the injury upon himself by misstatements and misrepresentations which led to the arrest. If Vice voluntarily went to the police station and submitted to have himself locked up until the next morning to await the return of Holley to Pass Christian, and then voluntarily went with the officer to Pass Christian and again submitted voluntarily to being locked up for twenty-four hours, without any compulsion being used, either actual or constructive, knowing at the time his right to refuse, then Holley is not liable; but it was for the jury to pass on the facts, and to say whether or not this was the case.

This is not a suit for malicious prosecution. This is a suit for false arrest of a party without warrant, beyond the jurisdiction [575]*575of the state, by an officer of the state — a person not charged with crime nor suspected of any offense. In a suit for false imprisonment, mistake as to identity of the party arrested may be considered in mitigation of damages and on the question of malice; but it can never defeat the action. Hays v. Creary, 60 Texas, 445; Formwalt v. Hylton, 66 Texas, 288 (1 S. W. Rep., 376) ; Landrum v. Wells (Texas Civ. App.), 26 S. W. Rep., 1001; 12 Ency. of Law (2d ed.), 768; 19 Cyc., 342; 3 Wait’s Action and Defenses, 316.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Mayes, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It was error in the circuit judge to give a peremptory instruction to find for defendant. At the time the arrest is said to have been made, Holley had no warrant for the arrest of Vice, and his incarceration was in another state from that in which the offense was charged to have been committed. Kelly was the man charged with crime at Pass Christian, Miss., and not Vice. Vice was locked up in jail in New Orleans one day, and again in Pass Christian for about twenty-four hours, protesting, as he says, all the while that he was not the man wanted, and giving the officer the names of various parties from whom he might ascertain his mistake; but no attention seems to have been paid to it by Holley. Any officer, in making an arrest, acts at his own peril, and if he makes a mistake, and arrests the wrong person, however innocently he may have acted, he is liable, unless the party complaining has brought the injury upon himself by misstatements and misrepresentations which led to the arrest. If Vice voluntarily went to the police station and submitted to have himself locked up until the next morning to await the return of Holley to Pass Christian, and then voluntarily went with the officer to Pass Christian and again submitted voluntarily to being locked up for twenty-four hours, without any compulsion being used, either actual or constructive, knowing at the time his right to refuse, then Holley is not liable; but it was for the jury to pass on the facts, and to say whether or not this was the case.

This is not a suit for malicious prosecution. This is a suit for false arrest of a party without warrant, beyond the jurisdiction [575]*575of the state, by an officer of the state — a person not charged with crime nor suspected of any offense. In a suit for false imprisonment, mistake as to identity of the party arrested may be considered in mitigation of damages and on the question of malice; but it can never defeat the action. Hays v. Creary, 60 Texas, 445; Formwalt v. Hylton, 66 Texas, 288 (1 S. W. Rep., 376) ; Landrum v. Wells (Texas Civ. App.), 26 S. W. Rep., 1001; 12 Ency. of Law (2d ed.), 768; 19 Cyc., 342; 3 Wait’s Action and Defenses, 316.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 So. 7, 88 Miss. 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vice-v-holley-miss-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack