Opinion ID: 1165768
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Agency of Baird.

Text: The plaintiff contends that in filing the criminal information Baird was acting for Heider. The evidence relating to this issue is as follows: Heider owned the River Bend Garage and Baird operated it for him. The principal business of the garage was the repair of heavy equipment. Heider paid Baird a salary of $400 a month in return for which Baird took care of the repairs, sold parts, and occasionally brought in equipment which Heider repossessed for default in payment on mortgages or conditional sales contracts. Heider stopped at the garage every day to pick up the receipts from the business which he deposited in his own bank account. Twice a month he turned over to Mrs. Baird, who kept the books for the garage, sufficient money to pay expenses. She deposited the money in a separate bank account (in which Heider had no interest) under the name of River Bend Garage. Mrs. Baird paid the bills with checks drawn on this account. Baird had the right to repair his own equipment in the garage, but was required to pay for the work as would any other customer. For a number of years Baird had engaged in the trucking business under a Public Utilities Commissioner permit in the name of Sheridan Truck Service. Heider had no interest in this business or the vehicles used in it. The trucks and trailers involved in this case were owned by Baird and his wife and had been used by Baird in his trucking operation before their sale to Gowin. Heider was then a practicing attorney and was also engaged in financing the purchase of automotive equipment. Before the sale here involved was consummated Baird took Gowin to Heider's office to discuss financing. Baird said to Gowin: I'll have to see Mr. Heider. He is calling the shots. The mortgage was prepared by Heider and the transaction closed in Heider's office. The record is confused and confusing as to just when the assignment of the mortgage was executed. A signed copy in evidence indicates the date as May 10, 1960. Heider testified to this date, but immediately corrected it to 1959. A ledger sheet from his books shows that he opened an account with Gowin based on this transaction on March 28, 1959, the date of execution of the mortgage, and, as previously stated, he paid Baird $14,000 for the assignment on June 25, 1959. By June, 1960, Baird had paid Heider the major part of the mortgage debt. On August 13, 1959, Heider told Baird that Gowin had left the country and on August 16, 1959, Heider and Baird went together to plaintiff's farm, a 30 mile drive, to inspect the mortgaged property. When Baird repossessed the mortgaged vehicles he brought them back to a lot owned by Heider adjacent to the garage. Before Baird went to the district attorney to file criminal charges against Gowin he told Heider that he was going to do so. Heider testified in a pretrial deposition: Q: Anyway, to boil it down, the signing of the criminal complaint was without your knowledge? A: That's right. It was strictly Mr. Baird's  I can answer one question on that if you want me to. Mr. Baird asked me what he could do to stop Gowin from stealing and robbing from him, and I said, `Do whatever you like about it,' and he said, `I'm going to see the Sheriff and the District Attorney.' I didn't stop him. Q: You knew he was going? A: I didn't know that he went. I knew that he intended to. You asked the date he went. I knew he did go down eventually. Baird saw Deputy District Attorney Frum in the district attorney's office. He was unable to tell Mr. Frum about the legal nature of the security instrument held by Heider. Frum called Heider on the phone and Heider gave him the information. He made it clear to Heider that Baird was in his office and that his purpose was to file a criminal complaint against Gowin. A day or two after filing the complaint Baird told Heider that he had done so. It is conceded that Heider was active in procuring the indictment of Gowin, but this may be put to one side. The indictment was a new proceeding, necessarily so since the plaintiff could not maintain the present action without showing that the first prosecution had terminated. White v. International Text Book Co., supra, 156 Iowa at 220; Reell v. Petritz, 224 Ill App 65. This was the view rightly taken by counsel for the plaintiff on the trial, and, though the rule governing the effect of the indictment on probable cause is not for this reason inapplicable, since both prosecutions were for the same offense, it is not logical to infer that Heider had a hand in the earlier proceeding because he asked the district attorney to commence the later one, which, it may reasonably be assumed, would never had been instituted but for the fact that some five months after the criminal information was dismissed the plaintiff filed the complaint in the present action for malicious prosecution. 16-18. The burden of proving that Heider participated in the institution of criminal proceedings against Gowin was upon the plaintiff. The character of evidence required was stated in Meyer v. Nedry, 159 Or 62, 68, 78 P2d 339, and reiterated in Hryciuk v. Robinson, supra, 213 Or at 562, as follows: The test of liability in an action for malicious prosecution is: was defendant actively instrumental in putting the law in force? To sustain the action, it must affirmatively appear as part of the case of the party demanding damages that the party sought to be charged was the proximate and efficient cause of maliciously putting the law in motion. Mere passive knowledge or acquiescence or consent in the acts of another is not sufficient to make one liable. To impose liability there must be some affirmative action by way of advice, encouragement, etc. The evidence discloses that Baird was Heider's agent in the operation of the garage and it could reasonably be found that he acted for Heider in repossessing the mortgaged vehicles, for this was a service included in those for which Heider paid Baird $400 a month. Heider testified, in substance, that he was not interested in the property because he had the guarantee of Mr. and Mrs. Baird, but the jury could have rejected this testimony as contrary to normal human conduct. Ordinarily, a creditor does not willingly forego his security. Moreover, while Baird, owing to his contingent liability, had a strong interest in the recovery of the property, he had no legal right or title to it and no right to repossess it on his own behalf. In a number of cases collected in the Annotation, 120 ALR 1322, 1325-1331, it is held that ordinarily commencement of a criminal prosecution is not within the scope of the authority of an agent, whether he be a partner or a servant, and that mere knowledge of or acquiescence in the proceeding is not sufficient to bind the other partner or the master. This would seem to be the correct rule where, as stated in the Annotation in 18 ALR2d 402, 406, the duties of the particular servant or agent involved are of a restricted and specific nature. If, however, the prosecution was instituted by the servant for the purpose of protecting the master's property or to recover back property which had been stolen the authority may be implied, 18 ALR2d 407. See the cases cited in the margin. [2] The theory of this distinction is thus stated in Nesben v. Koos, 59 ND 269, 271-272, 229 NW 368, quoting from 18 RCL 65: The question whether or not the person causing the wrongful arrest was an agent, and acting within the general scope of his authority, is for the jury under proper instructions. Ordinarily the arrest or criminal prosecution of an offender, even where the offense was against the property of the principal, is not within the scope of an agent's employment. In doing such act the agent acts in response to his duty as a citizen to see that public justice is done by punishing the offender. He by such an act does not, in theory of law, seek to punish the supposed theft because he has wronged the principal, but because he has wronged the state. See, also, 34 Am Jur 758, Malicious Prosecution § 89. 19. It is not suggested that any of the cases cited in footnote 2, supra, are precisely in point. For the most part they are like Hornin v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 120 F2d 500 (3d Cir.1941), where a store employee, in this instance the manager, to whom has been entrusted the duty of protecting his employer's property, commenced the criminal prosecution. Here, Baird had no general authority of this nature with respect to Heider's property except, perhaps, the property used in the garage, but he had been authorized by Heider (or at least the jury could have so found) to recover the mortgaged vehicles, including the motor and the other articles described in the criminal information. The real question in the case, therefore, is whether Baird continued to act under that authority when he commenced a criminal proceeding for the purpose, as he testified, of recovering those items of property. We think that this was a jury question, particularly in view of the close business and personal relationship between Heider and Baird and Heider's knowledge of what was going on. It may well be that Baird was acting, as he claimed, solely on his own account, but that was for the jury to say, and if they found, as evidently they did, that he was acting for Heider, the latter might, in these circumstances, be held liable as one who instigated the prosecution of Gowin. See Odom v. Tally, 160 Miss 797, 134 S 163. The trial court did not err in denying the motions for nonsuit and directed verdict as to the defendant Heider.