Alabama Co. v. Norwood

Decision Date24 April 1924
Docket Number6 Div. 93.
Citation100 So. 479,211 Ala. 385
PartiesALABAMA CO. v. NORWOOD.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster Judge.

Action for damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution by Lewis Norwood against the Alabama Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.

The charge given for plaintiff and made the basis of assignment 16 is as follows:

"The court charges the jury that, if they are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the defendant, through its officers or agents, acting within the line and scope of their authority, maliciously and without probable cause prosecuted the plaintiff for the offense of blowing up a house, and that plaintiff was tried and discharged by a justice of the peace having jurisdiction to try the plaintiff, then plaintiff should recover."

Foster Verner & Rice, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.

Mathews & Mathews, of Bessemer, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

This is an appeal from a judgment recovered by appellee against appellant in an action for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The suit arose out of the arrest and imprisonment of plaintiff while a strike was in progress in the vicinity of the defendant's mine. One of the houses on the defendant's property was destroyed, or partially so, by an explosion, and, following an investigation thereof, plaintiff was arrested and imprisoned. One Callahan, a deputy sheriff, was employed by defendant as a guard, and testified that when occasion demanded he had authority to arrest.

We treat the assignments of error in the order of their presentation in brief of counsel for appellant. Speaking of Callahan, and in answer to the question as to what he did upon coming to plaintiff's house, the plaintiff was permitted, over defendant's objection, to state: "Arrested me, taken me down to the company's office." This is not objectionable as being a mere conclusion of the pleader, but in the nature of a shorthand rendition of the facts, which facts were subsequently developed in the further progress of the examination of the plaintiff. The ruling of the court in this respect presents no reversible error. Hotel Tutwiler Co. v. Evans, 208 Ala. 252, 94 So. 120.

Assignments of error 3 to 10, inclusive, are argued in bulk, and, indeed, given but scant consideration in brief. Under such treatment in brief, if any one of the assignments is without merit, a consideration of others may be pretermitted. City of Montgomery v. Moon, 208 Ala. 472, 94 So. 337.

The ruling constituting the Eighth assignment of error was clearly correct in excluding a conversation between witness Hughes and Major Flowers, and needs no discussion.

The third count of the complaint was for malicious prosecution. The charge given at the plaintiff's request, constituting assignment of error number 16, may be considered in connection with assignment of error 20 which relates to the refusal of the court to give the affirmative charge as to said count upon the defendant's request. A detachment of the militia was stationed in the vicinity of this property-both at Searles and Brookwood, a few miles distant. The defense rested upon the theory that the arrest, imprisonment, and prosecution of this plaintiff was solely by the military authorities, for which it was in no way responsible. The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that one Taylor was the general superintendent of the defendant at this particular plant at Searles, and that Callahan, a deputy sheriff, was employed by the defendant as a guard, as previously stated; that Callahan came to the house where plaintiff was living, arrested him, and carried him in an automobile to the office of the company at Searles, where he was questioned by Taylor, at the end of which questioning Taylor instructed Major Flowers to take the plaintiff and place him "with the rest of the boys." Major Flowers then carried the plaintiff to Brookwood, and placed him in one of the houses of the company, where several others were confined, and in which house he was detained under guard for several days, at the end of which time he was released. Several days after his release the plaintiff was arrested by the sheriff, and told to go to this schoolhouse at Searles, which was on the company's property, for trial. When questioned at the company's office upon his first arrest, plaintiff was informed that he was arrested for blowing up the house, but no warrant had been issued for his arrest at that time. Plaintiff was tried before a justice of the peace at the same time the others who were confined with him in the house were tried, and he was discharged. The affidavit for his arrest was made by Major Flowers before the justice of the peace who tried the cause; the affidavit and arrest being on the same day.

Plaintiff insists that he had no connection with, and knew nothing about, the blowing up of the house. Both Taylor and Callahan were present and testified at the trial. The sheriff testified he did not remember who gave him the warrant for the plaintiff's arrest, nor who pointed out the boy to him, saying, "I am pretty sure it wasn't Mr. Taylor. I do not say it was or wasn't Mr. Callahan. I do not remember." Nor did he remember where he was when it was handed to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Morgan-Hill Paving Co. v. Thomas
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1931
    ...the same fate, if there can be no reversal as to either charge. City of Montgomery v. Moon, 208 Ala. 472, 94 So. 337; Alabama Co. v. Norwood, 211 Ala. 385, 100 So. 479; Bush v. Bumgardner, 212 Ala. 456, 102 So. Malone v. Reynolds, 213 Ala. 681, 105 So. 891; Southern Railway Co. v. Cunningha......
  • Bank of Cottonwood v. Hood
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1933
    ...that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Standard Oil Co. v. Davis, 208 Ala. 565, 94 So. 754; Alabama Co. v. Norwood, 211 Ala. 385, 100 So. 479; Cobb v. Malone & Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. The affidavit of the juror was not admissible to impeach the verdict, and the obj......
  • Glidden Co. v. Laney
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1937
    ...done in the line and scope of his employment. Caldwell v. Standard Oil Co., 220 Ala. 227, 124 So. 512; Alabama Co. v. Norwood, 211 Ala. 385, 100 So. 479; Emerson v. Lowe Mfg. Co., 159 Ala. 350, 49 So. Birmingham Ry., L. & P. Co. v. Crenshaw, 192 Ala. 462, 68 So. 327; Gambill v. Cargo, 151 A......
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Shaw
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1926
    ... ... supported by proof of negligence on the part of ... defendant's servants or agents acting within the line and ... scope of their authority. Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co. v ... Kimber, 212 Ala. 102, 101 So. 827; Morrison v ... Clark, 196 Ala. 670, 72 So. 305; Ala. Co. v ... Norwood, 211 Ala. 385, 100 So. 479. If any statement in ... Jones v. Kirkpatrick Sand Co., supra, may be construed to the ... contrary, it was an inadvertence ... [111 So. 22.] ... Plaintiff ... was permitted, over defendant's objection, to prove by ... one of his witnesses, who stated ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT