fore me, by W. E. Goddard, charging one Samuel D. Hicks, late of Phillips county, Kansas, and now within the county of Harlan, Nebraska, as a fugitive from justice; that said Samuel D. Hicks is charged with, on the 30th day of January, 1887, in the county of Phillips, and state of Kansas, after having mortgaged one span of mules, one black and one bay horse with a black stripe across the shoulders, eight or nine years old, and bay mare mule nine or ten years old, one Standard corn-planter, one Standard corn-plow, one Mast sulky-plow, one double harness, one three-section sixty-tooth drag, W. E. Goddard being the owner thereof, fraudulently removing and concealing the said mortgaged property with the fraudulent intent to place the same beyond the control of the said W. E. Goddard; now to issue warrant, and deliver same to Robert Mason, constable. Warrant returned, and indorsed as follows: 'Received this warrant on the 28th day of February, 1887, and according to the command thereof I arrested the within-named S. D. Hicks, and now have his body before this court. ROBERT MASON, Constable.' Defendant arraigned, and pleaded not guilty; where, upon examination, after hearing the evidence, I find the defendant guilty in manner and form as charged in said complaint, and ordered the said Samuel D. Hicks to be detained by the said Robert Mason for the period of ten days, unless sooner discharged or removed by operation of the process of law. Issued mittimus to Robert Mason therefor. J. B. FORBES, Justice of the Peace."

There was a trial to a jury, with findings for the plaintiff, and a verdict for $350 damages. The defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, in case the plaintiff should remit $150 of the amount of the verdict; and the plaintiff having remitted that sum, judgment was entered for $200 damages and costs. Exceptions having been taken, the defendant then took the case to the supreme court by a writ of error.

In delivering the opinion of the court affirming the decision of the court below, Cobb, J., said: "The law of this case arising upon the principal question presented is sufficiently stated in the opinion in the case of Smith v. State, 21 Neb., 552; 32 N. W. Rep., 594. By reference to the copy of the complaint made by Goddard against Hicks, as taken from the docket of the defendant Forbes, it will be seen that the only allegation against Hicks, in addition to the general one that he is a fugitive from justice, is that he 'is charged with on the 30th day of January, 1887, in the county of Phil lips and state of Kansas, after having mortgaged one span of mules, fraudulently removing and concealing,' etc. It is not stated that this charge has been made upon oath, or that it was made to any court or authority, or that such charge was then pending against the said accused. For aught that is stated, said charge might have been a mere idle, non-judicial ac. cusation, made through the newspapers or at the hustings, or, if ever made judicially, he may have been acquitted of it. For these reasons, upon the authority of the case above cited, and which opinion is amply sustained by cases cited from the courts of other states and of the United States, the warrant issued by the defendant Forbes, by the procuration of the defendant Goddard, and upon which the defendant Mason arrested and imprisoned the plaintiff, was simply void. It follows, therefore, that it could afford no protection to the defendants for the imprisonment of the plaintiff. Forbes et al. v. Hicks, 27 Neb., 111; 42 N. W. Rep., 898 (1889).

(3) An arrest upon probable cause.

Miles Olmstead brought an action against Asa Dolan for false imprisonment. On the trial it appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff and another man went to the livery stable of the defendant to hire a horse and wagon. It was about 3 o'clock in the morning. The men waked up the boy in charge of the stable, and Olmstead got of him a horse and wagon on the statement that be would be back by 9 or 10 o'clock on that day. He further stated that he was a regular customer at defendant's stables and had hired buggies there before. But this was not true. He had never hired horses at the stable before, and he did not give his name. The boy let him have the property solely on this false statement. The horse and wagon did not return as promised, and on Wednesday Dolan made a complaint. When taken before the justice Olmstead pleaded guilty to the charge and paid $20, and the charge was withdrawn. The jury found for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed.

Barnard, P. J., said: "The arrest was made under circumstances which justified the inference that the plaintiff was attempting to escape after he had notice that the constable had a warrant for his arrest. Whether or not the charge would have held good upon a trial is of no importance. The facts proven justified the arrest." Thaule v. Krekeler, 81 N. Y., 428. The release of the plaintiff with the property on the evening of Wednesday is a fact of no importance, as the warrant was then in the hands of the officer, and the case must be determined by the facts as they existed when the warrant was issued. The plaintiff's conduct subsequent to the return is not free from unfavorable inferences. The judgment should be affirmed. Olmstead v. Dolan, 6 N. Y. Sup., 130 (1889).

CHAPTER IV.

LIABILITY FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

§ 1. Matters discussed in this chapter.

2. A general rule of liability.

Applications of the rule.

(1) Corporations liable for the acts of its agents.
(2) Ordering officers to refuse bail.

(3) Procuring a writ of ne exeat to issue on insufficient affidavit.

8. Liability by ratification.

4. Ratification may be expressed or implied.

Applications of the rule.

(1) A ratification held not sufficient.

(2) Person employing an officer for a lawful purpose not liable for his wrong doing.

5. Liability of infants - The general rule.

6. Ratification-Trespasser ab initio.

Applications of the rule.

Trespasser ab initio - Ratification.

7. No liability in employing an officer to perform a lawful act.

8. The law stated by Campbell, C. J.

9. In what cases the liability exists.

10. Liability of parents and persons in loco parentis.

11.

Applications of the law.

Excess of punishment - Questions for a jury.

Guardian and ward.

12. Master and apprentice.

13. Teacher and pupil.

13a. The law stated by Stuart, J.

Applications of the law.

The criminal action - Extent of power, etc.

14. Other similar relations.

Applications of the law.

Liability of the captain and mate of a vessel for acts of disci

pline on the high seas.

15. Liability of keepers of charitable institutions - Superintendents of

asylums for the insane, etc.

16. Liability of superintendants of asylums for the insane-Not acting

under legal adjudications.

17. The superintendent as a judicial officer.

Applications of the law.

(1) Keepers of charitable institutions.

(2) Unauthorized detention of a harmless lunatic.

18. Legal adjudications not necessary in every instance.

19.

A public investigation not always necessary.

20. Further discussion of the subject.

21. Effect of a judicial inquiry.

Applications of the law.

Confinement in an asylum for the insane without judicial authority.

22. Liability of persons apprehending a lunatic without legal pro

cess.

23. The right to apprehend aud confine insane persons under legal ad

judications.

24. Restraint of insane persons - The law stated by Cooley. 25. Persons confined as lunatics- Remedy by habeas corpus. 26. The remedy confined to certain cases.

27.

Judicial officers - The term defined.

28. The rule of liability of judicial officers. 29. Judges of superior courts, liable when.

80. Excess of jurisdiction and want of jurisdiction distinguished. Applications of the law.

Judges of superior courts, illegal sentence, imprisonment thereunder, etc.

31. Judges of inferior courts, liable when.

32. The law stated by Bigelow, J.

33. Judicial officers not liable for acts not in excess of their jurisdiction.

34. The law stated by Cooley approved by Stallcup, C. J.

85. Discussion of the subject.

A mayor as peace officer, not liable for ordering an arrest.

39. The officer must act within his jurisdiction.

40. Immunity from liability not affected by improper motives.

41. Reasons for the rule-Stated by Field, J.

42. Jurisdiction - The term defined.

43. What jurisdiction is essential to immunity.

44. Jurisdiction must be legally acquired.

45. Distinction between superior and inferior courts - Acting within

48.

Jurisdiction, when presumed and when not —Superior and inferior courts.

49. Superior courts - Jurisdiction, when presumed.

50. What is a superior court.

51. Inferior courts -Jurisdiction never presumed.

52. What is an inferior court.

54. Inferior courts-Justices of the peace-Jurisdiction never presumed.

55. Judges of inferior courts - When not liable for acting without

jurisdiction.

56. The common law affords to all inferior courts complete protec

tion.

An illustration.

Sufficiency of the complaint and warrant.

57. Liability of judges of inferior courts in cases of doubtful jurisdic

Complaint failing to show where the offense was committed. 60. Liability when jurisdiction is assumed through mistake of fact. Application of the law.

(1) A justice exceeds his jurisdiction knowing the facts.

(2) Liability, complaint showing the statute of limitations had

run against the offense.

61. Judges of inferior courts acting under void and unconstitutional

statutes.

Applications of the law.

A contrary doctrine.

62. Liability of judicial officers acting ministerially.

Applications of the law.

(1) Liability of justice acting ministerially-Agent for plaintiff.

(2) Justice acting in good faith not liable for ministerial acts.

63. Liability-Justice of the peace acting ministerially.

(1) A party not liable for the acts of the justice.

(2) Issuing mittimus after suffering the defendant to go at

large for a year.

65. Liability of a justice of the peace in issuing process without authority of party in interest.

Applications of the law.

Service of process by unauthorized persons void-Liability of justice for proceeding under such service.

66. Liability of a justice of the peace acting judicially.

67. Liability for the abuse of legal process.

Applications of the law.

(1) Liability of justice for abuse of process.

(2) Use of criminal process to enforce the settlement of a debt.

68. Liability of quasi-judicial officers.

An illustration of the rule.

Quasi-judicial tribunals -- Overseers of the poor.

69. Arrests by officers: (1) With process; (2) Without process. 70. The officer protected by process regular on its face.

7