Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/514

 HENRY O. OLSON, Respondent, v. HORTON MOTOR COMPANY. a corporation, W. H. HORTON, W. G. KIRBY and W. L. MARtINCKA, Appellants.

Trial—general instruction of law upon submission of special verdict error.

1. The plaintiff brought an action against defendants for false arrest and imprisonment. Certain issues of fact were submitted to a jury on a special verdict. The court in submitting the special verdict also gave what is regarded as general instructions of law. It is held that this was reversible error.

Trial—submission of general verdicts with special verdict held error.

2. At the time submitting a special verdict the court also submitted two forms of general verdict under the same instructions, and in connection with the special verdict. It is held the submission of the general verdicts in the circumstances in which they were submitted was reversible error.

Appeal from the District Court of Ransom County, North Dakota, McKenna, J.

Judgment reversed.

Lawrence, Murphy and Nilles, for appellants.

“Arrest under a warrant, valid in form, issued by competent authority on a sufficient complaint, is not false imprisonment, though the indictment under which the warrant issued was procured maliciously and by artifice and misrepresentation, for the purpose of extorting money. The proper remedy is not an action for false imprisonment, but for malicious prosecution. Judgment (C. C. A. 1896) 77 Fed. 271, affirmed. Whitten v. Bennett, 86 Fed. 405; 30 C. C. A. 140.

The complaint being sufficient to give the magistrate jurisdiction, the complainant who presented the same was likewise exempt from liability for false imprisonment, and could be reached, if at all, only in an action for malicious prosecution, Judgment (1904) 88 N. Y. Supp. 871, 43 Misc.