Case Name: FALLS v. PALMETTO POWER & LIGHT CO. ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-10-10
Citations: 117 S.C. 327
Docket Number: 10743
Parties: FALLS v. PALMETTO POWER & LIGHT CO. ET AL.
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 327–353

Head Matter:
10743
FALLS v. PALMETTO POWER & LIGHT CO. ET AL.
(109 S. E. 93)
1. Appeal and Error—Charge not Appealed From Law of Case— A charge, not appealed from, is the law of the case.
2. False Imprisonment—Arrest Held Unlawful—Information given concerning plaintiff, as one who had committed a felony, and who was arrested on a warrant against John Doe, held not sufficient to warrant a man of ordinary reason to come to the conclusion that plaintiff was the man who committed the crime.
3. False Imprisonment—Evidence Held to Show Participation in Unlawful Arrest.—In an action for false imprisonment growing-out of an arrest under information that plaintiff had sold property similar to that stolen, evidence held to show that the arrest was procured, instigated, and participated in by the general superintendent of the company from which the property was stolen.
4. Corporations—Responsibility- for Unlawful Arrest Held for Jury.—Whether a power and light company was responsible for wrongful arrest of plaintiff for an alleged breaking, entering- and stealing of electric fans held for the jury, there being evidence that the person procuring the arrest was the general manager of all the company’s business, and that the arrest was on account of its business.
5. False Imprisonment—Willfulness Warranting Punitive Damages Shown.—In action against a power and light company, and its general superintendent, for unlawful arrest, evidence held such as to warrant a finding- of willfulness or wantonness which would support punitive damages.
6. False Imprisonment—$2,000 not Excessive Punitive Damages.— A verdict for $2,000 punitive damages for willful unlawful arrest, causing plaintiff to miss a train held not excessive' or unreasonable
Before SpasE, J., Florence, November, 1920.
Affirmed
Action by J. F. Falls against Palmetto Power & Light Co. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
Messrs. Willcox & Willcox, Henry B. Davis and James M. Lynch, for appellant,
cite: Lawful arrest: Crim. Code 1912, Sec. 1. Must be made on dependable information: 74 S- C. 412. Test is what reasonable man would do under the same circumstances: 19 Cyc. 352. Must act promptly for public welfare: 19 Cyc. 352. Rule of liability of principal for act of agent in making arrest: Ann. Cas. 1914-B, 638; E. R. 6 J. B. 65, 34 Am. Rep. 315; R. R. 5 C. P. 445; 34 Am. Rep. 311 (Md.); 39 N. Y. 381; 100 Am. Dec. 448; 15 Fed. 199; 26 A. E. R. 539 (N. Y.); 64 R. R. A. 685 (Pa.); 64 S. E. 18 (W. Va.); 8 E. R. A. 846 (Md.); 34 E. R. A. (N. S.) 525; 48 S. E. 816, 67 E. R. A. 455; 57 So. 563 (Miss.); 63 So. 904 (Fla.); 11 R. C. R. 811; 86 S. C. 73; 72 S. C. 205. Agency cannot be proven by unsupported declarations of the agent: 104 S. C. 30. Judgment jointly binding on several pw'ties if reversed as to one must be reversed as to all: 172 U. S. 534.
' Messrs Royall & Fulton and Whiting & Baker, for respondents,
cite: False imprisoment may arise from unlawful arrest, or from unlawful detention after a lawful arrest: 2 Brev. 157; 1 R. C. R. 110; 101 S. E. 569. Arresting officer must produce warrant on demand; 95 S. E. 138. Liability of principal for acts of agent: 11 R. C. E, 810, par. 23; 6 Rabatt Master & Servant, 7485, 7676; R. R. A. 1916-F, 1247; 6 A. R. R. 1469; 5 Fletcher Corpus., par 3345; 77 S. C. 546; 19 R. R. A. 824; 3 S. C. 1; 67 S. C. 391.
October 10, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
The case contains this statement:
"This was an action for damages, for an alleged false imprisonment of the respondent, arising out of the following facts: On the night of June 5, 1919, the storehouse of Palmetto Power & Right Company, a corporation engaged in the sale of electric current and of electrical appliances in Florence, was broken into and an electric fan stolen therefrom. When discovered on the following morning the robbery was reported to the city police department. Upon investigation, it was discovered that upon the night of the robbery electric fans had been offered for sale in the city, to various persons, among others, to one J. W. Howard, proprietor of a restaurant, who described the person who had offered him the fan. It further developed that a fan had been purchased on that night by one Alio was, and upon examination the fan purchased by him was identified as that stolen from the electric company, and it was forthwith restored to that company by the police authorities."
"Thereafter, on the evening of June 8, 1919, Howard, seeing at the railroad station one whom he believed to have been the party who had offered to sell him two fans on the night of the robbery, telephoned the office of the company, and advised the general superintendent, the defendant Hodges, that the man who had tried to sell him a fan was at the depot, and if they would secure an officer they would get him. Thereupon Hodges had the police station telephoned, and upon being advised that the officer on duty then had no way of getting to the depot quickly, he offered the use of his personal automobile to carry him. Accordingly Hodges, the officer, and two others proceeded in Hodges' car to the depot. Upon arrival there, they were met by Howard, who advised them that the man had gone off but that his baggage was there indicating the same. Whereupon Hodges walked - over and kicked the bag, and hearing a jingling sound, made some remark as to the bag containing tools. The officer went off in search of the party to be apprehended, and, upon his being pointed out by Howard, arrested the plaintiff, Falls."
"Falls, after some dispute, submitted to the arrest, and the officer started toward a taxicab. . At this point Hodges again volunteered the use of his car. Falls, the officer and the two who had accompanied Hodges to the depot got into the car with Hodges and drove off. They went through the streets of the city to the place where they were informed Allowas lived, but upon arrival there ascertained that he was not the man who had purchased the fan. They accordingly drove to another part of the city, where the right man was located. Upon Falls being presented to him, he failed to identify him as the party who had sold to him the stolen fan. Whereupon the officer released Falls and left the car. Falls and Hodges had some words over what had taken place, but Hodges drove him back to the station, and there left him."
"The plaintiff brought suit for $5,000 against Hodges personally and against Palmetto Power & Light Company. The case came on to be heard before' his Honor, Judge Thomas S. Sease, and a jury at the November, 1920, term of the Court of Common Pleas for Florence County. At the conclusion of the testimony the defendants submitted a motion for a directed verdict, which was refused. The jury found for the plaintiff $500 actual, and $2,000 punitive damages. A motion for a new trial was made and refused. The defendant thereupon gave notice of an appeal to this Court."
The appellant's argument says:
"The -exceptions present for determination these questions :
"(1) Was the arrest unlawful?
"(2) If unlawful, was it procured, instigated, or participated in by Hodges ?
"(3) If unlawful and procured, instigated or participated in by Hodges, was the appellant Palmetto Power & Light Company responsible for his acts in connection therewith ?
"(4) Was there any testimony tending to show willfulness or wantonness upon which the jury could base a verdict for punitive damages?
"(5) Was the verdict for punitive damages excessive and unreasonable?"
1. Was the arrest unlawful?
His Honor, Judge Sease, charged the jury as follows:
"Now what is a lawful arrest? I'will first charge you that the breaking and entering of a house in the daytime or nighttime with intent to steal or commit some other felony is a felony, and' any citizen may arrest a thief upon information, provided the information is sufficient to warrant a man of ordinary reason to come to the conclusion that the man sought to be arrested is the thief or felon. An officer or citizen may not arrest simply because a felony has been committed, but they may arrest the thief or felon, that is, the person who commits the felony or commits the theft, upon information that is reasonably calculated to satisfy a man of ordinary- prudence and reason that the party sought to be arrested is guilty of a felony. I charge you that is applicable to an officer or a private citizen, and arrest may be made in these circumstances without a warrant."
This charge, not being appealed from, is the law of this case. There was evidence that some fans had been stolen from the defendants' corporation, but no evidence that the fans offered for sale to the defendants' witness Howard were stolen fans. Whatever may be said as to the sufficiency of the evidence of identification of' the plaintiff by the witness Howard, yet as a matter of fact, the parties who made the arrest were not satisfied, and went off to find the purchaser of the fan. The warrant named the person to be arrested as "John Doe." That means that the person who made the affidavit and the officer who issued the warrant,were uncertain as to the person to be arrested. The warrant itself bespoke caution. The plaintiff offered to prove his identity by citizens of Florence, easier of access than the purchaser of the fan, .but his entreaties were ignored. His Honor charged the jury that the arrest must be "upon information that is reasonably calculated to satisfy a man of ordinary prudence and reason that the party sought to be arrested is guilty of a felony." The information did not even satisfy the parties who made the arrest. Under 'the charge, therefore, the arrest was unlawful. This assignment of error cannot be sustained.
If'unlawful, was it procured, instigated or partidpated in by Hodges?
There was abundant evidence to show that the arrest was procured, instigated, and participated in by Hodges. The defendants' witness Howard stated:
"I had done what I promised to do, and that was ail the interest I took in it. I had promised Mr. Hodges to telephone him. It was at his request and on account of the company's business I was to phone down there."
Mr. Hodges directed the sending of the phone message to police headquarters. He went in his own car for the officer, took him.to the place of arrest; watched the plaintiff's baggage for plaintiff's return; took the prisoner and officer to look for the purchaser of the stolen fan. There was abundant evidence from which the jury might have inferred that Mr. Hodges was the effective manager of the entire proceedings. This assignment of error cannot be sustained.
III. If unlawful and procured, instigated, and participated in by Hodges, was the appellant Palmetto Power & Tight Company responsible for bis acts in connection therewith?
Here again the evidence was abundant. The evidence showed that Mr. Hodges was the general manager of all the company's business, and direct evidence, unobjected to, and by defendants' witness, that it was "on account of the company's business." It is true that Mr. Hodges' denied this, but that made it a question for the jury. This , assignment of error cannot be sustained.
IV. Was there any testimony tending to* show willfulness or wantonness upon which the jury could base a verdict for punitive damages?
The plaintiff was arrested while his identity was uncertain. He was not informed of the cause of his arrest. His request that he be allowed to show who he was by business people of Florence was ignored. He was taken from a station where his train was about to depart, kept until it had gone; no apology for the injury done, and even though it suggested itself to Mr. H'pdges that the plaintiff might be short of money, not only was there no offer of assistance, but it was made a matter of jest.
V. Was the verdict for punitive damages excessive and unreasonable?
The answer is No.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.