Hewlett v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Railway Co.

Mississippi Supreme Court April 15, 1888

Hewlett v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Railway Co., 65 Miss. 463 (Miss. 1888)

Campbell

Opinion of the Court

Campbell, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We do not concur in the view that the undertaking declared on was contrary to public policy, and, therefore, void. Public policy favors bail, and a contract to furnish or procure it is unobjectionable. Greenhood on Public Policy, Rule 385, p. 450.

The demurrer is sustainable on another ground. The indictment and arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff were not the proximate, but the remote result of the service he rendered the defendant in arresting Parker, and therefore were not within the contemplation of the contract, and the failure to procure bail for him in that case was not a breach of the contract.

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Thomas G. Hewlett v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Railway Company
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Public Policy. Contract to furnish bail. A contract to furnish bail is not void, as being contrary to public policy; for public policy favors bail. 2. Contract. Breach of. Damages whether proximate. Case in judgment. A railway company employed II. to act as detective in and about its business, agreeing to furnish H. bail in case he was imprisoned because of his acts in the discharge of his duty under the contract. H., in such discharge of his duty, caused one P. to be arrested for wrecking the company’s train. While in the custody of the sheriff P. was seized by a mob and killed. Afterwards H. was indicted, arrested and imprisoned for complicity in such killing. He requested the company to furnish him bail, which it refused to do. He was tried and acquitted, and thereupon brought an action against the railway company for breach of its contract. Held, that the facts stated do not constitute a breach of the contract. The indictment, arrest and imprisonment of plaintiff were not the proximate but the remote result of the service he rendered the defendant in arresting P., and therefore not within the contemplation of the contract.