Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Hinsdell

Citations

• 76 Kan. 74
• 90 P. 800
• 1907 Kan. LEXIS 222

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Carriers — Transportation Contract — Waiver of Lien. A written contract for the transportation of goods by a common carrier will not be deemed to waive a lien upon them for the charges therefor unless it contains provisions inconsistent with the assertion of such lien or unless an intention to make such waiver is indicated expressly or by clear implication.</p> <p>2. - Waiver of Lien Not Shown. Such a waiver is not shown by recitals in such a contract that all prior agreements concerning the facilities for such shipment or concerning the transportation of .such goods or such shipment are merged in . the written contract, and that the written contract contains all the terms, agreements and provisions relating in any manner to the transportation of such goods.</p> <p>3. Criminal Law — Larceny by General Owner of Goods. The general owner of goods shipped by a common carrier may be guilty of larceny by fraudulently taking them from its possession with the intent of defeating its lien upon them for the transportation charges.</p> <p>4. -Arrest without a Warrant — Discharge—Legality of Detention — Good Faith. Where one guilty of a felony is lawfully arrested therefor by an officer without a warrant, and is discharged before his detention has become unlawful through an unreasonable delay to procure a warrant or to present him before a magistrate, such discharge does not operate to make the original arrest unlawful, nor does it afford conclusive proof in an action for false imprisonment that the prosecution was not begun in good faith.</p> <p>5. Damages — Action for False Imprisonment — Evidence. Where one who has committed grand larceny by fraudulently taking goods of which he is the general owner from the possession of a carrier having a lién thereon is arrested therefor, but released without having been brought before a magistrate, in an action for false imprisonment brought by him against the carrier evidence that the carrier’s agent