Workmen’s Compensation proceeding in which compensation was denied by the referee and the Commission. The circuit court judgment affirming the Commission was affirmed by the St. Louis Court of Appeals. (Hacker v. City of Potosi,
Claimant, whose regular employment was with the Brown Shoe Company, was employed by the City at $2.50 per hour as a part-time police officer to be on duty on Friday and Saturday nights — “sometimes go on at eleven and work until daylight and sometimes I’d go on at seven and work until about one o’clock.” For this hourly pay, claimant furnished his own car. Claimant was a deputy sheriff of Washington County at the time he was employed and continued to be during his employment. *761 Claimant said before he was employed he was called into a meeting of the City Council, at which the Mayor “stated that the reason that they wanted me was because I did have a commission and I could go out in the county and bring in people that violated the law and that’s why they wanted me as a police officer for the city.”
About 1:30 A.M., on the night of his injury, the Chief of Police of the City, Virgil Sutton, was in claimant’s car with him, parked on High Street which was also Highway 8. They saw a car, with California license plates, with one light out, go by at between 70 and 75 miles per hour, violating an automatic stop light. Chief Sutton said “let’s get him” and claimant drove aft•er the car, chasing it about a mile when it ■“turned off the highway down a small dirt road” which “led down to a small house.” Claimant said: “[W]hen we got to the car it was empty, the doors were open and the lights were on, and we pulled up behind the car, got out of our car and Mr. Sutton walked up to the other car and looked inside and there was no one there, of course we could tell that when we drove up, and we walked around behind the car and I walked out and was shining my flashlight around and just as I brought the flashlight around I noticed there was a house there, I hadn’t seen the house before, and just as I brought the flashlight around I saw a man on the porch and he shot, he shot me.” It was shown that the place where the car was found was about 1,700 feet outside the ■city limits. Other facts and the findings and conclusions of the Commission are set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals and we refer to it for these matters. In the findings of the Commission it is stated that •claimant “approached the house” but the •evidence, hereinabove set out, does not support that finding. Instead it shows that •claimant was shot just as he brought his flashlight on the house which he had not seen before.
The Commission and the Court of Appeals decisions were based on the view that there was no causal connection between the work claimant was employed to do as a police officer of the city and his injury and therefore his injury did not arise out of his employment. It was also held that claimant was not injured in the course of his employment because he was acting beyond the scope of his employment in attempting to make an arrest outside the city limits. The Supreme Court of North Carolina expressed similar views in Wilson v. Town of Mooresville,
We have held that a police officer of a fourth class city (which Potosí was) has no authority to arrest without a warrant outside the city limits in nonfelony cases. (City of Advance ex rel. Plenley v. Maryland Casualty Co., Mo.Sup.,
However, in this case, claimant had not attempted to make an arrest when he was shot. He and the Chief were investigating the car which had been abandoned. Perhaps they only would have made an investigation of it for purposes of determining the identity of its owner as a basis for filing a complaint and obtaining a warrant. We
*762
know of no reason why they would not have authority to do this. There may be many circumstances under which police officers might have duties which would require their presence outside city limits. (See Sec. 79.-380 authorizing fourth class cities to own and police certain installations and institutions within five miles of the city limits; see also Sec. 79.430 concerning cemeteries within three miles.) Perhaps it might be necessary to take prisoners properly in custody to a safer place of detention in another city, to recover or transport city property, or to aid in emergencies due to accidents, as in Village of Butler v. Industrial Commission,
A policeman of a city of the fourth class is empowered by statute to serve a warrant issued by the mayor or police judge anywhere within the limits of the county. Sections 98.540 and 85.620. He is a proper person to apply for and obtain a warrant especially where the offense is committed in his presence. Sec. 98.530, see also S.Ct. Rules 37.07, 37.08, 37.09 and 37.46, V.A.M.R. Surely it would be within his duties to go beyond the city limits to investigate and establish the identity of the offender in order to obtain a warrant and thereafter make a lawful arrest. If the activities in which the claimant was engaged at the time he was shot were consistent with his duties as a city policeman, coverage under the Act should not be denied because the officer might have had a further purpose which if carried out could constitute an unlawful act not arising out of and in the course of the officer’s employment as a'city officer.
If claimant was attempting to make an arrest, without a warrant, he could have been acting lawfully only in his capacity as a deputy sheriff. However, if he was only making an investigation to determine ownership and identity he could have been acting lawfully as a city police officer. In Corp v. Joplin Cement Co., Mo.Sup.,
The judgment of the circuit court affirming the final award of the Industrial Commission is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the circuit court to set aside its judgment and enter a new judgment reversing the award of the Industrial Commission and to remand the cause to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.