Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/146

 ment, the title of a bona fide purchaser from the patentee could not be disturbed by the government.” United States v. Winona R. Co., 165 U. S. 463, 478, 479, 17 Sup. Ct. 368, 372, 41 L. Ed. 789, 796.

It follows from what has been said that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

, C. J., and, and , JJ., concur.

, J., concurs in the result.

KATHERINE MASON, Respondent, v. FRED UNDERWOOD, J. C. HARPER and JAMES MORAN, Appellants.

False imprisonment—evidence insufficient to sustain recovery against a joint tort-feasor.

1. In an action for false imprisonment brought against three defendants as joint tort-feasors, the evidence is examined, and it is held insufficient to support a recovery against one of the defendants.

False imprisonment—verdict for $4,000 set aside as excessive.

2. Where a verdict for $4,000 was rendered in favor of the plaintiff who was illegally confined in jail for the period of approximately three hours, it is deemed to embrace punitory damages and to include a sum as punishment to the defendant who is not shown to have been responsible for the wrongful acts of the other two defendants, and the verdict cannot stand as against the remaining tort-feasors.

False imprisonment—evidence of ownership of property held admissible on question of culpability.

3. In an action for false imprisonment where it appears that the arrest was occasioned partly by acts of the plaintiff in refusing to permit the defendants to remove personal property belonging to one of them, evidence that one of the defendants was owner of the property is admissible for its bearing upon the degree of culpability of the defendant’s conduct, though not as a justification of it.