Kirby v. Foster
17 R.I. 437, 14 L.R.A. 317, 22 A. 1111 (1891)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of property cannot use force to retake it from a person who, having obtained possession peacefully, now retains the property under an honest, even if erroneous, claim of right.
Facts:
- Providence Warehouse Co. previously deducted fifty dollars from the pay of its bookkeeper, the plaintiff, holding him responsible for its loss.
- On January 20, 1888, the defendant, Samuel J. Foster, who was the company's agent, handed the plaintiff money to pay other employees.
- Acting under legal advice, the plaintiff took from this money the amount he believed was due to him, including the previously deducted fifty dollars.
- The plaintiff put the money he took into his pocket, returned the remaining balance to Foster, and announced that he had received his pay and was quitting.
- The defendants, Foster and his son, then physically seized the plaintiff and attempted to forcibly take the money from him.
- A struggle ensued, during which the plaintiff claimed to have been injured.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendants for injuries sustained during an assault.
- The case was tried before a jury in the court of first instance.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendants (appellants) petitioned for a new trial, appealing the trial court's judgment based on exceptions to the presiding justice's rulings and refusals to rule.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an owner have a right to use force to retake property from an employee who, having been voluntarily entrusted with the property, appropriates it under an honest claim of right?
Opinions:
Majority - Stiness, J.
No, an owner does not have the right to use force under these circumstances. The right to use force to recapture property is limited to defending one's possession against a purely wrongful taking by someone without any claim of right. Here, the plaintiff came into possession of the money peacefully and lawfully, as it was entrusted to him by his employer. When he appropriated a portion of it, he did so under an honest, though potentially erroneous, belief that he was entitled to it as payment. This good-faith claim of right means his act did not constitute larceny or embezzlement, which would require felonious intent. The law does not permit parties to settle conflicting property claims through personal violence; the proper remedy is through civil actions like replevin or trover. Public order and peace are of greater consequence than allowing individuals to act as arbiters of their own claims through force.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical limitation on the common law right of recapture. It distinguishes between defending one's immediate possession from a wrongdoer (like a thief) and using force to reclaim property from one who obtained it peacefully and asserts a colorable claim of right. The decision prioritizes public order over self-help remedies in property disputes, forcing owners to resort to the legal process rather than violence. This precedent reinforces the principle that once possession is peaceably transferred, disputes over title or right to possession must be resolved in court, not by force.
