Court Opinion

ID: 9808876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:53:10.282269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:55.383108
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
dissenting: This action is brought by the feme plaintiff (her husband being joined as plaintiff) against the defendant, a foreign corporation doing business at Sunburst, Haywood County, for false arrest, false imprisonment and forcible and illegal detention of her person. It was in evidence that her husband was in the employment of the defendant company; that he went to its superintendent and told him that he was unwilling to sign certain papers that the superintendent required, that he was going to leave,' that a stove he had bought from *the company the week before he had left in company’s house, that he would pay. for its use and wanted a settlement; that he applied twice the next day to superintendent for a settlement, but being unable to get it (he returned the. key of his room, in which he had left the stove) and having boxed up his household goods, he put them in the wagon to carry them to another town. Having put his wife and five-year-old child in the wagon to ride, he started on ahead on foot. It was a rainy day. When the wife was ready to start, the superintendent and assistant superintendent of the company detained the wagon, and would not let the feme plaintiff leave. There had been no warrant or any paper served on her or her husband.
The plaintiff further offered to prove- that' these two officers and another man, who was an employee of the defendant, told the feme plaintiff that they were going to arrest her husband and send him to Waynesville jail, and were going to hold her until the officer came back with her husband; that the assistant superintendent went and looked at the stove, and when he came *16back told Huggins, one of Ms employees, that if the feme plaintiff would pay $2, to give her the warrant and let her go.; that she then gave Huggins a $5 bill, he gave it to the assistant superintendent, who put it in the company's cash drawer and gave Huggins $3, who then suffered feme plaintiff to leave after having been detained two hours in the defendant’s yard. When three men tell a defenseless woman they are going to “hold her” and she does not move, it is an illegal arrest.
On this evidence, the court intimating that plaintiff could not recover, she took a nonsuit and appealed. According to this evidence, the feme plaintiff with her child, wagon and household goods were detained for over two hours in the defendant’s yard, against her will, by the two chief officers of the defendant, aided by an employee, and not permitted to leave till she paid the company a sum which these three men demanded of her. This detention was without any excuse. It is not contended that in her possession or in the wagon there was any property of the company. There was superior force — three men, two of them the highest officers, acting for the company, against a defenseless woman and child. She was “held up” for two hours until she was told the sum of money on payment of which she would be allowed to proceed, and until she paid it. Such conduct was false arrest and false imprisonment, because by force and without authority. 19 Cyc., 319. Forcing the feme plaintiff to pay the company money before she was allowed to depart was little short of “highway robbery,” unexplained by any evidence. The defendant should have opportunity to show its version of this extraordinary occurrence,-and the feme plaintiff is entitled to have a jury to pass upon the truth of the evidence.
“False imprisonment is simply any unlawful detention of the person.” 12 A. and E., 721. One who “interferes with the freedom of locomotion of another” without legal authority does so at his peril. 19 Cyc., 320. If such interference is unlawful, “neither good faith nor provocation nor ignorance of the law” (neither of which are here shown) is a defense in a civil action; but if there is malice it aggravates the damages.' 19 Cyc., 319, 320; 12 A. and E., 724, and cases there cited. “Absence of malice is no defense in a civil action.” Neal v. Joyner, 89 *17N. C., 287. Tbe detention by mere threats or show of superior force, if unlawful, constitutes false imprisonment. Martin v. Houck, 141 N. C., 317.
There was evidence which, uncontradicted, made the corporation liable for the conduct of its officers. Lovick v. Railroad, 129 N. C., 427; Kelly v. Traction Co., 132 N. C., 368. The detention was on its premises, by its officials, for the purpose of collecting money, which was paid into its treasury, and is there still, so far as the evidence shows.