Sipult v. Wilson Land & Grain Co.

Citations

• 94 Kan. 224
• 146 P. 329
• 1915 Kan. LEXIS 75

Syllabus

<p>syllabus BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Assault — Damages—Jurisdiction Obtained by Attachment. In an action for damages for an assault by its agent, a foreign corporation owning property here may be proceeded against by attachment and publication service, a summons having been returned unserved. •</p> <p>2. Same — Assault by Agent — Within Scope of Agent’s Authority. The plaintiff’s theory was that the defendant land company’s agent planned and participated in an assault upon him as a means to put another lessee of a tract of the defendant’s land in possession. On such assumption the company would be liable if the testimony fairly showed that the agent was doing what his principal had employed him to do, and was acting in the line and course of his employment and for the benefit of his principal, and not in the accomplishment of some purpose of his own, although acting in a wrongful manner.</p> <p>3. Arrest — Warrant—Duty of Officer — Instructions. The testimony was such that the jury had to determine whether the assault was committed in an effort in good faith to assist a constable in arresting the plaintiff upon a warrant in his hands or whether such warrant was used as a cover and excuse for forcibly putting one of the persons deputized by such officer in possession of the land occupied by the plaintiff. Touching the duty of an arresting officer and the rights of the one sought to be apprehended, the court charged the jury in substantial accord with sections 129 to 132 of the criminal code. Held, proper.</p> <p>4. Special Findings — Judgment. When the special findings are not in substance or effect inconsistent with the general verdict, a judgment on such findings can not be ordered.</p>