Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Same-Election to Sue in Assumpsit.

An infant may, however, be sued ex contractu, in assumpsit, for a cause of action really ex delicto. Thus, if he convert the property of another, the latter can recover in assumpsit. This serves to show that the action of assumpsit still retains traces of the ex delicto character of its origin.273

SAME-DRUNKARDS.

56. Drunkards are liable for all damages committed by them. Their condition may, however, mitigate damages, and, when it amounts to insanity, perhaps operate as a full defense, as far as insanity is a defense to an action in tort.

While the acts of a drunkard are often involuntary, his condition is generally due to a voluntary act, and his acts become voluntary by reflection. "Drunkenness is no excuse to a crime. It cannot justify a tort. The making a beast of one's self may be likened to the keeping of a beast; and, as in some cases the scienter is presumed, so it will be presumed that a man knows that if he gets drunk he will be likely to commit acts which will produce injury to other people." 274 Therefore, if a drunken man say to another,

v. Cordley, 1 Brown, Ch. 353-358; Nelson v. Stocker, 4 De Gex & J. 458; Cory v. Gertcken, 2 Madd. 40. See, further, Conroe v. Birdsall, 1 Johns. Cas. 127; Curtin v. Patton, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 305, 309; Stoolfoos v. Jenkins, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 399, 403; Keen v. Coleman, 39 Pa. St. 299; Studwell v. Shapter, 54 N. Y. 249; Mathews v. Cowan, 59 Ill. 341; Densmore v. Cowan, Id. 347.

273 Shaw v. Coffin, 58 Me. 254; Elwell v. Martin, 32 Vt. 217; Munger v. Hess, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 75.

274 Pig. Torts, §§ 216, 217; McKee v. Ingalls, 5 Ill. 30; Alger v. Lowell, 3 Allen (Mass.) 402; Welty v. Indianapolis & V. R. Co., 105 Ind. 55, 4 N. E. 410; Hubbard v. Town of Mason City, 60 Iowa, 400, 14 N. W. 772; O'Hagan v. Dillon, 42 N. Y. Super. Ct. 456; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cragin, 71 Ill. 177; Cramer v. Burlington, 42 Iowa, 315; Smith v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 38 Hun, 33; Little Rock Ry. v. Pankhurst, 36 Ark. 371; Monk v. Town of New Utrecht, 104 N. Y. 552, 11 N. E. 268; East Tennessee & W. R. Co. v. Winters, 85 Tenn. 240, 1 S. W. 790; Barbee v. Reese, 60 Miss. 906; Sullivan v. Murphy, 2 Miles (Pa.) 298. As to standard of drunkenness, see Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 94 Ala. 434, 10 South. 530.

"He is a damned thief; he stole from me," his drunken condition is no defense.275 So a drunkard is liable for damages done by negligent driving.276 Drunkenness may, however, be evidence of absence of actual malice, and may thus mitigate damages. 277 Perhaps delirium tremens may be a defense, for it is a species of insanity, and, like other insanity, must affect responsibility for acts, criminally and civilly.278 But drunkenness is not mental unsoundness.279

SAME--CONVICTS-ALIEN ENEMIES.

57. In England, neither a convict not lawfully at large, nor an alien enemy, can sue in tort. The rule is otherwise in America, as to a convict, and perhaps, also, to an alien enemy.

The English rule that a convict cannot recover in tort is the result of the common-law doctrine, that a convict is civiliter mortuus, enforced by statute.280 The position of an alien enemy and a convict, Mr. Pollock thinks, must be the same.281

In America the right of a confined convict to sue for tort has been recognized and enforced.282 Indeed, he is, in some respects, in a

275 Reed v. Harper, 25 Iowa, 87.

276 Cassady v. Magher, 85 Ind. 228. Compare Engleken v. Hilger, 43 Iowa, 563; Kearney v. Fitzgerald, Id. 580.

277 Dawson v. State, 16 Ind. 428; Gates v. Meredith, 7 Ind. 440; Iseley v. Lovejoy, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 462. And see Mix v. McCoy, 22 Mo. App. 488; McKee v. Ingalls, 5 Ill. 30. In an action against a surgeon for malpractice, defendant's condition, as to being intoxicated, at the time he treated plaintiff, may be shown. Merrill v. Pepperdine, 9 Ind. App. 416, 36 N. E. 921.

278 Maconnehey v. State, 5 Ohio St. 77; O'Brien v. People, 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 275.

279 In re Johnson's Estate, 57 Cal. 529. As to conversion by purchase from an intoxicated person, see Baird v. Howard (Ohio) 36 N. E. 732.

280 Pol. Torts, c. 3, citing 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, §§ 8, 30; De Wahl v. Braune, 1 Hurl. & N. 178, 25 Law J. Exch. 343. But see Barnard's Case, 4 Com. Dig. "Forfeiture," B, 2, p. 406; Flemming v. Smith, 12 Ir. C. L. 404; Mews, Com. Law Dig. "Forfeiture."

281 Pol. Torts, c. 3, note c.

282 Dade Coal Co. v. Haslett, 83 Ga. 549, 10 S. E. 435; Willingham v. King, 23 Fla. 478, 2 South. 851; Cannon v. Windsor, 1 Houst. (Del.) 143; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333-380 (as to effect of a pardon). But public officers,

more favorable position in a proceeding to enforce such a right than an unoffending citizen.283 But, as far as the injury complained of affected the convict's ability to labor during the period of his im prisonment, he cannot recover therefor.284 In McVeigh v. United States, 285-a proceeding against a resident within the Confederate lines, and a rebel, for the forfeiture of lands,-Mr. Justice Swayne says, as to the claim that an alien enemy could have no locus standi in the forum: "If assailed there, he could defend there. The liability and the right are inseparable. A different result would be

a blot on our jurisprudence."

SAME-PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.

58. Private corporations are liable for their torts committed under such circumstances as would attach liability to natural persons. That the conduct complained of necessarily involved malice, or was beyond the scope of corporate authority, constitutes no defense to their liability.286

For a long time difficulties, due rather to considerations of procedure than to fancied obstacles arising from a corporation's arti

having the custody of prisoners, are not liable to a prisoner for injuries caused by defective machinery with which he was put to work. O'Hare v. Jones, 161 Mass, 391, 37 N. E. 371.

283 The rule forbidding the recovery by a servant who subjects himself to injury by going, without objection, into a place known by him to be dangerous, does not apply to a convict whose movements are controlled by a guard having power to compel obedience. Chattahoochee Brick Co. v. Braswell, 92 Ga. 631, 18 S. E. 1015. And se: Dalheim v. Lemon, 45 Fed. 225-233. Cf. Porter v. Waters-Allen Foundry & Mach. Co., 94 Tenn. 370, 29 S. W. 227.

284 Shiras, J., in Dalheim v. Lemon, 45 Fed. 225.

285 11 Wall. 259, citing Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 388; Bonaker v. Evans, 16 Adol. & E. (N. S.) 170; Capel v. Child, 2 Cromp. & J. 574. And generally, as to legal status of a public enemy, see McNair v. Toler, 21 Minn. 175; Miller v. U. S., 11 Wall. 268; Dean v. Nelson, 10 Wall. 158; Lasere v. Rochereau, 17 Wall. 437; University v. Finch, 18 Wall. 106; Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274. As to subjection of alien to law of contracts, see Milliken v. Barrow, 55 Fed. 148. And see article by Prentiss Webster in 24 Am. Law Rev. 616.

286 A very full presentation and discussion of the principles underlying

ficial personality, were felt in admitting that a corporation could be sued for tort.2 287 In 1812 it was held that trover lay against a corporation,288 and in 1842, that trespass lay, also.289 As clearly as liability not necessarily attributable to personal fault is thus recognized, responsibility is admitted for damages consequent upon negligence.200 In cases, however, in which the mental attitude of the wrongdoer is peculiarly involved, as in fraud 2o1 or malice,292 it has been contended that, inasmuch as a corporation had no soul, it could not be held liable. But it is now definitely settled that a corporation can be guilty of malice, in a legal sense.293 Thus, it may be held liable for malicious prosecution,294 or for libel.295 And, as to

this statement of law are contained in the opinion of the supreme court of Nebraska in the case of Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald & Mallory Const. Co., 41 Neb. 374, 59 N. W. 838.

287 Pol. Torts, p. 51.

288 Yarborough v. Bank of England, 16 East, 6.

289 Maund v. Monmouthshire Canal Co., 4 Man. & G. 452.

290 There is no negligence of a servant which is not the negligence of a corporation. Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Sanders, 98 Ala. 293, 13 South. 57; Railway Co. v. Ryan, 56 Ark. 245, 19 S. W. S39.

291 Western Bank of Scotland v. Addie, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 145.

292 Abrath v. North Eastern Ry. Co., 11 Q. B. Div. 440; Stevens v. Midland R. Co., 10 Exch. 351; Henderson v. Midland Co., 20 Wkly. Rep. 23; Childs v. Bank, 17 Mo. 213; Owsley v. Railway Co., 37 Ala. 560; post, p. 170, “Ultra Vires."

293 Wachsmuth v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 96 Mich. 426, 56 N. W. 9; Lathrop v. Adams, 133 Mass. 471-481; Salt Lake City v. Hollister, 118 U. S. 256-262, 6 Sup. Ct. 1055; Reed v. Home Savings Bank, 130 Mass. 443-445, and cases cited; Krulevitz v. Eastern R. Co., 140 Mass. 573, 5 N. E. 500; Bank of New South Wales v. Owston, 4 App. Cas. 270.

294 Abrath v. North Eastern Co., 11 Q. B. Div. 440; Green v. London General Omnibus Co., 29 Law J. C. P. 13; Bank of New South Wales v. Owston, 4 App. Cas. 270; Edwards v. Railroad Co., 6 Q. B. Div. 287; Mor. Corp. § 727; Central Ry. Co. v. Brewer, 78 Md. 394, 28 Atl. 615. Hewett v. Swift, 3 Allen, 420; Ramsden v. Boston & A. R. Co., 104 Mass. 117; Frost v. Domestic Sewing Mach. Co., 133 Mass. 563; Jackson v. Second Ave. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 274; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Vandiver, 42 Pa. St. 365; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Williams, 55 Ill. 185; Owsley v. Montgomery R. Co., 37 Ala. 560; St. Louis, A. & C. R. Co. v. Dalby, 19 Ill. 352; Philadelphia &

295 See note 295 on following page.

fraud, a corporation will be held liable where an individual would.296 There may, however, be an exception to this, where Lord Tenterden's act is in force.2 297 Even exemplary damages have been awarded against corporations.298

R. R. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. 468; American Exp. Co. v. Patterson, 73 Ind. 430; Lynch v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 90 N. Y. 77; Vance v. Erie R. Co., 32 N. J. Law, 334; Goodspeed v. East Haddam Bank, 32 Conn. 530; Copley v. Grover & Baker Sewing-Mach. Co., 2 Woods, 494, Fed. Cas. No. 3,213; Fenton v. Sewing-Mach. Co., 9 Phila. (Pa.) 189; Walker v. Southeastern R. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 640; Edwards v. Midland Ry. Co., 6 Q. B. Div. 287; Williams v. Planters' Ins. Co., 57 Miss. 759; Morton v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 34 Hun, 366; Pennsylvania Co. v. Weddle, 100 Ind. 138; Carter v. Howe Mach. Co., 51 Md. 290; Reed v. Home Sav. Bank, 130 Mass. 443.

295 Rex v. Watson, 2 Term R. 199; Whitfield v. South Eastern Ry. Co., El., Bl. & El. 115-121, 27 Law J. Q. B. 229; Aldrich v. Press Printing Co., 9 Minn. 133 (Gil. 123); Fogg v. Boston & L. R. Corp., 148 Mass. 513, 20 N. E. 109; Samuels v. Evening Mail Ass'n, 75 N. Y. 604; Maynard v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 34 Cal. 48, 47 Cal. 207; Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Quigley, 21 How 202; Howe Machine Co. v. Souder, 58 Ga. 64; Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 42 Hun, 153; Johnson v. St. Louis Dispatch Co., 2 Mo. App. 565; Borgher v. Life Ass'n, 75 Mo. 319; Payne v. Western & C. R. Co., 13 Lea (Tenn.) 507; Van Aernam v. McCune, 32 Hun, 316; Detroit & C. Co. v. McArthur, 16 Mich. 447; Vinas v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 27 La. Ann. 367; Lawless v. Anglo Egyptian Cotton & Oil Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 262; Carter v. Howe Mach. Co., 51 Md. 290; Green v. Omnibus Co., 7 C. B. (N. S.) 230302; Gwynn v. South Eastern Ry. Co., 18 Law T. (N. S.) 738; Evening Journal Ass'n v. McDermott, 44 N. J. Law, 430; Tenck v. Great Western Ry Co., 32 U. C. Q. B. 452.

290 Mackay v. Commercial Bank, L. R. 5 P. C. 394; National Exchange Co. v. Drew, 2 Macq. 103, 124, et seq.; Ranger v. Great Western R. Co., 5 H. L. Cas. 72; Barwick v. English Joint-Stock Bank, L. R. 2 Exch. 259; Kennedy v. Panama, N. Z. & A. R. M. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 589; Erie City Iron Works v. Barber, 106 Pa. St. 125; Peebles v. Patapsco Guano Co., 77 N. C. 233; Lamm v. Port Deposit Homestead Ass'n, 49 Md. 233; Cragie v. Hadley, 99 N. Y. 131, 1 N. E. 537; New York & N. H. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30; Butler v. Watkins 13 Wall. 456; Candy v. Globe Rubber Co., 37 N. J. Eq. 175; Fogg v. Griffin, 2 Allen, 1; Western Bank v. Addie, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 145-157; Concord Bank v. Gregg, 14 N. H. 331; Scofield Rolling-Mill Co. v.

State, 54 Ga. 635; Fishkill Sav. Inst. v. National Bank, 80 N. Y. 162. 297 Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank, 5 App. Cas. 317 (per Lord Blackburn).

298 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101, 13 Sup. Ct. 261; Bass v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 42 Wis. 654; Eviston v. Cramer, 57 Wis.

« ZurückWeiter »