Alabama Brokerage Co. v. Boston

• Citation: 18 Ala.App. 495,93 So. 289
• Decision Date: 18 April 1922
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 946.
• Parties: ALABAMA BROKERAGE CO. v. BOSTON.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

93 So. 289

18 Ala.App. 495

ALABAMA BROKERAGE CO. v. BOSTON.

6 Div. 946.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 18, 1922

Rehearing Denied May 9, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C. B. Smith, Judge.

Suit by Joe Boston against the Alabama Brokerage Company for damages for causing the loss of his employment by filing with his employer an assignment of wages. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000, and the defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Count 1 was eliminated on demurrer, but is copied here as part of same was included in count A when the complaint was amended:

"The plaintiff claims of the defendant $5,000 damages, for this that heretofore, to wit, on the 15th day of September 1920, the defendant willfully, wantonly, and intentionally and maliciously and wrongfully placed or caused to be placed with plaintiff's employer, St. Louis- San Francisco Railroad Company, a corporation, an alleged assignment of wages or 'notice' of assignment of wages, which assignment or notice thereof was 'void,' which was known to the defendant, but notwithstanding said knowledge, the defendant willfully, wantonly, and intentionally, wrongfully, and maliciously placed or caused to be placed with said St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad Company, the same well knowing that so to do would in all probability cause plaintiff to be discharged from the services of said employer, and without regard to the consequences of said wrongful, willful, wanton, intentional, and malicious act which said act defendant did, or caused to be done, on the day and date aforesaid; and plaintiff further avers that, on account thereof, and as a direct and proximate consequence thereof, said St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad Company has pulled plaintiff out of their service and discharged him from his occupation as fireman for said St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad Company, at which occupation plaintiff earned a livelihood; and plaintiff further avers that he has suffered very great loss, inconvenience, and annoyance, that he has been unable to collect his wages due him from said railroad company without suit against them, and that he has been unable to pay his just debts on account thereof; that he has been unable to procure other employment and has lost much time on account thereof; that he has been rendered less able to aid and provide a suitable living for his wife and children; that plaintiff's standing and reputation with his said employer has been greatly damaged; that he has suffered great damage in that it has been made difficult for him to procure other like employment in the Birmingham district. And, whereas plaintiff further says that all of his aforesaid injuries and damages were caused by reason of and as a direct and proximate consequence of the willful, wanton, intentional, wrongful, and malicious conduct of the defendant as aforesaid; hence plaintiff sues."

"Count A. Comes the plaintiff in the above-entitled cause, and, with leave of the court first had and obtained, amends his complaint by hereby referring to and incorporating, as a part of the following count, called 'A,' all words and figures contained in count 1 of plaintiff's complaint heretofore filed, and, in addition thereto, immediately following the word 'void,' wherever the said word appears in said count 1, the following averment, to wit: That said assignment was not in compliance with the act of Alabama Legislature approved April 11, 1911; that the defendant was a money lender, and engaged in the business of lending money in Alabama; that the assignment the defendant held at the time alleged assignment was filed with said plaintiff's employer the same was and was for a loan of money and given for wages to be earned."

"Count B. The plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of $5,000 damages for this, that heretofore, on, to wit, the 15th day of September, 1920, plaintiff was an employé of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad Company; that on or about said day and date aforesaid the defendant, acting through its servants or agents within the line or scope of their authority or employment, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously lodged with plaintiff's said employer an assignment or notice of an assignment of wages; and plaintiff avers that said alleged assignment, if any there was, was void, in that it failed to comply with the terms of the Money Lenders Act of Alabama in the year of 1901, approved March 9, 1901; that a copy of same was not furnished plaintiff at time same was purported to be executed; that same had not been recorded in the office of the judge of probate of Jefferson county within five days after its making, if made; that it was taken by defendant, if any there was, for a loan of money as security, and rate of interest is not stated; that the defendant was engaged in the business of money broker; and plaintiff well knowing that said assignment was void, and that its filing of the same with plaintiff's employer would cause plaintiff's said employer to discharge plaintiff from its service; and plaintiff avers that the defendant, acting as aforesaid, notwithstanding said knowledge, did willfully, wantonly, and maliciously lodge or cause said assignment to be lodged with said employer; and plaintiff avers that, as a direct and proximate consequence of said willful, wanton, and malicious act, plaintiff lost much time from his employment; that his said employer discharged him and he suffered all the injuries and damages set out in count A of plaintiff's complaint, heretofore filed, which injuries and damages are hereby specially referred to and made a part of this count."

The following are the grounds of demurrer:

"Now comes the defendant and demurs to the complaint as amended and to each count thereof, separately and severally, and assigns the following grounds of demurrer to said complaint and to each count thereof:

"(1) That the facts alleged in said complaint do not as a matter of law render said assignment void.

"(2) That said act of Legislature of 1901, under which said count B of the complaint as amended is drawn, is void and unconstitutional in this: Said act is what is known as class legislation; said act violates section 23 and section 24 of the Constitution of 1875 (article 1); said act violates section 2, art. 1, of the Constitution of 1875; said act violates section 22 and section 35 of the Constitution of 1901; said act violates section 104 of the Constitution of 1901; said act violates subdivisions 13 and 19 of section 104 of the Constitution of 1901.

"(3) Said act of 1901, commonly known as the Money Lenders Act, under which said count B of said complaint as amended is drawn, is void and unconstitutional in this: Said act attempts arbitrarily to place

...