American Sur. Co. of N. Y. v. Hooker
Decision Date | 06 March 1951 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 903 |
Parties | AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK v. HOOKER. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Marion F. Lusk, of Guntersville, for appellant.
Scruggs & Scruggs, of Guntersville, for appellee.
The following is the count upon which the case was tried.
'Count 9
The following charges were refused to defendant:
'10. Gentlemen of the Jury, I charge you that if you are reasonably satisfied from all the evidence that Mr. Hooker could have paid the Bank $1000 and had the attachment dismissed at the Bank's expense, before he himself had incurred any liability, expense or loss, and that he deliberately refused to take advantage of that opportunity, then he is not entitled to a verdict for actual damages, regardless of whether the attachment was wrongful or even malicious.'
'20. Gentlemen of the Jury, if you are reasonably satisfied from all the evidence that when Mr. Hooker learned of the attachment being levied, he formed the purpose of bringing a suit on the bond to make the bank pay him damages, and if you are further reasonably satisfied that his activities thereafter in resisting the attachment suit were for the sole purpose of magnifying his injury, and that he could have paid $1000 and had the attachment dismissed on March 9, 1946 at the Bank's expense without any injury, loss or expense to himself, then he will not be entitled to any compensatory damages.'
This is a suit by Amzi Gentry Hooker against The American Surety Company of New York.
In the court below the issues were formed by Count 9 of the complaint, the plea of the general issue, and a special plea of advice of counsel.
The trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff.
The reporter will set out Count 9 of the complaint.
There are ninety-seven assignments of error.
In approaching this review we will adhere to these rules:
Assignments of error which are not stressed in appellant's brief will not be considered. Supreme Court, Rule 10, Code 1940, Title 7 Appendix; Alabama Power Co. v. Thompson, 250 Ala. 7, 32 So.2d 795, 9 A.L.R.2d 974; Arrick v. Fanning, Ala.App., 47 So.2d 708.
Where in appellant's brief assignments of error are argued in groups, if any one of said assignments is without merit, a review of the others will be pretermitted. Moseley v. Alabama Power Co., 246 Ala. 416, 21 So.2d 305.
We will make no further reference to those assignments which are based on the rulings of the court to which appellant's attorney failed to except. Calvert v. J. M. Steverson & Sons Lumber Co., 244 Ala. 206, 12 So.2d 365; Broglan v. Owen, 34 Ala.App. 480, 41 So.2d 434.
The answers to some of the questions to which objections were interposed were not harmful to appellant. Stephens v. State, 250 Ala. 123, 33 So.2d 245; Kornegay v. State, 33 Ala.App. 338, 33 So.2d 405.
This observation will serve to illustrate our conclusion as to the assignments which are predicated on rulings incident to these doctrines.
In a few instances counsel for appellant did not interpose any objection to the question until after the answer thereto. Assignments predicated on rulings relating to these queries will not be reviewed. Jones v. Daniel, 34 Ala.App. 490, 41 So.2d 627; Kelley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 408, 26 So.2d 633.
At the beginning of the trial proceedings this occurred:
'At a point in the rebuttal statement of the case to the jury by Mr. Scruggs:
'Mr. Scruggs: In answer to that, gentlemen of the jury, we say that if they made any investigation whatever it was a very scanty investigation.
'Mr. Lusk: We object to anything about an investigation.
'Mr. Lusk: We haven't said anything about an investigation.
'Mr. Lusk: We don't put that in.
'The Court: They must be learned in the law of Alabama because a man in Honolulu or New York would not know whether----
'Mr. Lusk: I believe I will take an exception to that.
'Mr. Lusk: That statement was made in the presence of the jury.
'The Court: We will adjourn and find out what the law is if there is any question of that.
'Mr. Lusk: We move for a mistrial in view of that statement made before the jury.
'The Court: I overrule your motion.
'Mr. Lusk: We except.
'Mr. Lusk: That is the first time that proposition has been broached to me.
'Mr. Lusk: I think it is highly prejudicial to raise that point and make that statement in the presence of the jury at this stage of the trial.
Later in the colloquy the trial judge stated:
We have not attempted to set out all that was said by the attorneys and the judge, but an intelligent and fair review can be predicated on what we have delineated.
The evidence for the defendant discloses that members of a Memphis, Tennessee law firm were consulted about the matter.
Apparently the trial judge abandoned his views as expressed in the above quotations. In any event, in his oral charge he did not confine the advice of counsel doctrine to advice from only Alabama lawyers. At the request of the defendant he gave this written instruction:
'Gentlemen of the Jury, if you are reasonable (sic) satisfied that before the suing out of the attachment the Memphis Bank sought advice of reputable attorneys and made to them a full and fair statement of all the facts within its knowledge, or which be (sic) reasonable effors (sic) it could have obtained in reference to the grounds of attachment, and that said attorneys advised the Bank that it had probable cause for the attachment, and that the Bank in good faith acted on said advice, then as a matter of law this would be a complete defense to this suit and you cannot find a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mabry v. State
...the jury as to the law of this case. It was the duty to the jury to look to this source for guidance. American Surety Co. of New York v. Hooker, 36 Ala.App. 39, 58 So.2d 469; Dixie Stage Lines v. Anderson, 222 Ala. 673, 134 So. We find nothing in the above statements by the Solicitor that w......
-
Campbell v. Laningham
...conjunction with it will not be considered. Bolton v. Barnett Lumber & Supply Co., 267 Ala. 74, 100 So.2d 9; American Surety Co. of New York v. Hooker, 36 Ala.App. 39, 58 So.2d 469; Wyatt v. Birmingham, 37 Ala. App. 579, 72 So.2d The remaining assignments of error not being argued in appell......
-
Burns v. State, 8 Div. 660
...'objection.' Previously in Alabama it was almost uniformly denominated 'exception.' It was said in American Surety Co. of New York v. Hooker, 36 Ala.App. 39, 58 So.2d 469, 478: 'It has been held that an 'objection' to the oral charge is not equivalent to an 'exception.' Roberson v. State, 2......
- Johnson v. City of Birmingham, 6 Div. 74