Moffatt v. Buffums' Inc.

[373]

GRAIL, P. J.

This appeal is taken by the plaintiff from a judgment of dismissal entered against her after defendants ’ motion for a nonsuit was granted. The action was one for false imprisonment. The trial court’s ruling must therefore be examined in the light of the numerous and uniform decisions of this state which hold in effect that the motion for nonsuit “admits the truth of plaintiff’s evidence, and every inference of fact that can be legitimately drawn from it, and the evidence should be interpreted most strongly against the defendant”.

(Miller

v.

Cookson,

89 Cal. App. 602 [265 Pac. 374].) “Every favorable inference fairly deducible and every favorable presumption fairly arising from the evidence adduced must be considered as facts proved in favor of the plaintiffs. Where evidence is fairly susceptible of two constructions, or if one of several inferences may reasonably be made, the court must take the view most favorable to the plaintiffs.”

(Berger

v.

Lane,

190 Cal. 443 [213 Pac. 45] ;

Coakley

v.

Ajuria,

209 Cal. 745 [290 Pac. 33] ;

Richardes

v.

Richardes,

211 Cal. 392 [295 Pac. 816].

In the light of the above rules which apply when a non-suit is granted, the following are the facts of the case: On July 30, 1935, plaintiff, an employee of defendant, Buffums’ Inc., at the request of defendant Galbreth, who was secretary and treasurer of the defendant corporation, went to the office of the general manager in the building belonging to defendant corporation. Upon entering the office, the door was closed behind her by Galbreth, who then introduced plaintiff to defendant Watson, also an employee of defendant corporation. After plaintiff was seated at Watson’s request, the latter accused her of stealing a sum of money belonging to defendant corporation, which plaintiff denied. Such accusations and denials were repeatedly made for the greater part of five hours, the approximate time during which plaintiff was detained in the office. Watson informed plaintiff that she was not there to explain anything, but was there on a charge of stealing the money; also, she was informed that Watson was a “Government man”. Watson, after repeated attempts, finally secured a written confession of such theft from plaintiff, but only after forcibly restraining plaintiff, against her will, from leaving the office. The defendant Galbreth was out of the office during most of the five-hour period, but was