False Imprisonment

Any unlawful restraint of a man’s liberty, whether in a place made use of for imprisonment generally, or in one used only on the particular occasion, or by words and an array of force, without bolts or bars, in any locality whatever.

1 Bish. Or. Law § 553; Webb’s Poll. Torts 259; State v. Rollins, 8 N. H. 550; Smith V. State, 7 Humphr. (Tenn.) 43; Floyd V. State, 12 Ark. 43, 64 Am. Dec. 250; 7 Q. B. 742; Wood v. Kinsman, 5 Vt. 588; Adams v. Freeman, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 117; Webber v. Kenny, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 345; Fotheringham v. Express Co., 36 Fed. 252, 1 L. R. A. 474; Moore v. Thompson, 92 Mich. 498, 52 N. W. 1000; Callahan v. Searles, 78 Hun 238, 28 N. Y. Supp. 904.

The total, or substantially total, restraint of a man’s freedom of locomotion, without authority of law, and against his will.

Big. Torts 113.

— Partial and conditional restraint is held not to constitute false imprisonment; Crossett v. Campbell, 122 La. 659, 48 South. 141, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 967, 129 Am. St Rep. 362; 7 Q. B. 742; Sullivan v. R. Co., 148 Mass. 119, 18 N. E. 678, 1 L. R. A. 513; as where the, restraint was voluntary, in that it rested with the plaintiff to terminate it by desisting from the doing of an unlawful act; Crossett v. Campbell, 122 La. 659, 48 South. 141, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 967, 129 Am. St. Rep. 362; but where one is restrained until he shall make certain promises; Hildebrand V. Mc Crum, 101 Ind. 61; Bonesteel v. Bonesteel, 28 Wis. 245;

or statements; Mc- Nay V. Stratton, 9 IlL App. 215;

— or payments; Smith V. State, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 43; it is usually held gn imprisonment.

Arresting the wrong person under a warrant constitutes false imprisonment; F. Moo. 457; so if there is a misnomer in the warrant even though the person actually intendout of his bailiwick, or detains the person unduly; 4 B. & C. 596; an arrest under a void writ constitutes a false imprisonment; Deyo V. Van Valkenburgh, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 242. A writ may be void because defective in language, because the court hjad no Jurisdiction of the proceedings, or because the court had no Jurisdiction to issue the writ; Big. Torts 122; Nixon v. Reeves, 65 Minn. 159, 67 N. W. 989, 33 L. R. A. 506. The.clerk of the court who Issues a defective writ, or one not authorized by the court, is liable; and so is a Judge who orders a writ which he had no right to issue, or where he had no Jurisdiction. Both the attorney and his client may be liable if the former ordered the arrest, and even when the arrest has been ordered by a Judge, I. e. in a case where they participate in making the arrest; Big. Torts 128; or where the writ was issued by the misconduct of the attorney; id.

129.

A Judge of a superior court can never be liable for an act done by him in his official capacity; [1895] 1 Q. B. 668. Otherwise of a Judge of an inferior court, if he acted beyond his Jurisdiction; 1 B. & C. 169; and it must appear that he knew or had means of knowing that he was doing so; 3 Bing. 78; a mistake of law will not protect him; 19