Just v. Martin Bros. Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Action by Paul Just, against Martin Brothers Company, foi damages1 for false imprisonment. Prom an order overruling demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. (2) To point two of the opinion, Respondent cited: Code Civ.
Read the full summary
Action by Paul Just, against Martin Brothers Company, foi damages1 for false imprisonment. Prom an order overruling demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. (2) To point two of the opinion, Respondent cited: Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 144. (3) To.point three of the opinion, Appellant cited: Kroeger v. Passmore, (Mont.) 14 L- R. A. (N. S.) 990; Raycroft v. Tayntor, 33 L. R. A. 225; Cobby v. State Journal Co., (Neb.) U'3 N. W. 224; Ingalls v. 'Christopherson, 21 S. D. 574; 19 ■Cyc. 320; Enright v. Gibson, 76 N. E. 689; Bláck’s Law Dictionary.' ..... (4) To point four of the opinion, Appellant…
1DissentMcCOY, J.
If the complaint in question stated any cause of action for any purpose, the ruling of the trial court on the demurrer was not error. Dunlap v. Railway Co., 32 S. D. 581, 144 N. W. 226; Emerson v. Nash, 124 Wis. 369, 102 N. W. 921, 70 L. R. A. 326, 109 Am. St. Rep. 944. I am of tfie view that this complaint states a good cause of action, either for false imprisonment or malicious prosecution. The majority opinion seems to concede that if the commitment described in the complaint had been designated as a “supposed” or “pretended” commitment, -the pleading would have been good. I am of the view…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Emerson v. NashWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Boswell v. First National Bank of LaramieWyoming Supreme Court · 1907
- State v. FordhamNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
- Dunlap v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1913