Liggett v. Philliber

SCHOTTKY, J. pro tem. Appellant commenced an action against respondents to recover damages for alleged false imprisonment, her complaint alleging in part that:

“. . . for many years last past plaintiff has been a widow residing with her minor son of the age of fifteen years in her home in the Town óf Davis. . . . •

“■ ■ ■ the defendants acting together and in concert, each conspiring with the other against the plaintiff with' the intent and for the purpose of causing the arrest, imprisonment and commitment to the Mendocino State Hospital of the plaintiff caused to he made and sworn to an affidavit, ... Exhibit ‘A’ . . . made a part hereof.

. the defendants in the manner, with the intent and for the purpose heretofore stated caused the said affidavit to be filed in the Superior Court . . . County of Yolo, and when said affidavit was so filed did cause to be. procured an order and judgment of said court for the arrest of plaintiff and her imprisonment in and commitment to said'. . . Hospital, and upon said affidavit did cause the arrest, imprisonment and confinement of plaintiff in said hospital and" did deprive [94]her of her liberty for a period of twenty-three days, all . . . without any right, authority, legal process or commitment and against the will of plaintiff.

“. . .by reason of the aforesaid arrest, imprisonment and confinement plaintiff suffered great physical distress, ... to the plaintiff’s general damage in the sum of $25,000.00.

“. . . by reason of said . . . arrest, . . . plaintiff was compelled to engage . . . counsel for the purpose of procuring her release . . . from said . . . imprisonment . . . and was compelled to apply to the Superior Court . . . County of Mendocino for a Writ of Habeas Corpus which said writ was granted ... by virtue of said writ plaintiff was discharged . . . from said imprisonment . . . plaintiff was compelled to expend ... in counsel fees and other expenses caused by said . . . arrest, . . . and procuring her discharge therefrom the sum of $244.75.”

The trial court made an order sustaining respondent’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, and this appeal is from the judgment entered in favor of respondents on such order.

In support of her contention that the court erred in sustaining respondents’ demurrer to her complaint, appellant makes two points: First, that the affidavit upon which the inebriacy proceedings were based was insufficient, and that, therefore, the court acquired no jurisdiction; and, second, that the court having acquired no jurisdiction, all of the subsequent proceedings were illegal and void, and respondents who initiated them by filing the affidavit are liable for damage for false imprisonment.