Case v. Hulsebush

• Decision Date: 07 June 1899
• Parties: CASE v. HULSEBUSH.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

26 So. 155

122 Ala. 212

CASE v. HULSEBUSH.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 7, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Mobile county; William S. Anderson Judge.

This action was brought by the appellee, John G. Hulsebush against the appellant, John Case, for assault and battery by appellant's employé. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The court, at the request of the plaintiff, gave to the jury the following written charge; to the giving of which the defendant duly excepted: "If the jury believe from the evidence that Duncan Case refused to accept the payment of plaintiff's taxes unless he would also pay the collector's fees, and that a discussion arose over this matter; that plaintiff went off and came back and again offered to pay his taxes without the collector's fee; and that Duncan Case would not receive them and became angered at such offer, and on that account began to curse and abuse plaintiff, and this led to his assaulting the plaintiff,-then you ought to find for the plaintiff."

The court at the request of the defendant gave to the jury the following written charges: (4) "The jury are charged that unless they are reasonably satisfied from the evidence before them in this cause that the assault and battery alleged to have been committed by Duncan P. Case upon the plaintiff in this cause was committed in the attempt of said Case to collect a fee alleged to be due from the plaintiff as a taxpayer, which said fee the said Duncan P. Case by virtue of his employment as a deputy tax collector was authorized to collect, and which was an unlawful charge against the plaintiff, they must find for the defendant." (5) "The jury are charged that if they shall be reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the alleged assault and battery by Duncan P. Case upon the plaintiff in this cause was the result of malice, vexation or wantonness on the part of said Duncan P. Case, they must find a verdict for the defendant, notwithstanding the fact that the said Duncan P Case was in the employ of the defendant when he so assaulted and beat the plaintiff, unless they shall be reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the defendant authorized or participated in such act, or that said assault was committed while acting within the scope of the employment of said Duncan P. Case." The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (1) "The court charges the jury that if they believe the evidence they must find for the defendant." (2) "The court charges the jury that if they shall find from the evidence that the assault and battery alleged to have been committed by Duncan P. Case upon the plaintiff was caused by a question of veracity between the said Duncan P. Case and the plaintiff, and not on account of said Duncan P. Case endeavoring to collect an illegal fee from the plaintiff for the defendant, the said Duncan P. Case was not acting within the scope of his employment by the defendant, and they must find a verdict for the defendant." (3) "The court charges the jury that in order to find a verdict for the plaintiff in this cause, they must find that the said Duncan P. Case, alleged in the complaint to be an employé of the defendant, acted within the scope of his employment in committing the alleged assault and battery upon the plaintiff, and, if they shall find from the evidence that the said Duncan P. Case departed therefrom in committing said assault and battery, they must find their verdict for the defendant." (6) "The court charges the jury that if they shall find from the evidence that the assault and battery alleged to have been committed by Duncan P. Case upon the plaintiff was caused by a question of veracity between the said Duncan P. Case and the plaintiff, and not on account of said Duncan P. Case endeavoring to collect an illegal fee from the plaintiff for the defendant, they must find for the defendant."

The defendant reserved an exception to a segregated portion of the court's general charge to the jury; but it is unnecessary to set out this portion of the court's general charge.

There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at $250. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the rulings of the trial court upon the charges to which exceptions were reserved. Affirmed.

Bestor & Gray and R. H. & N. R. Clarke, for appellant.

Gregory L. & H. T. Smith, for appellee.

HARALSON J.

The liability of a master for the wrongful acts of his agents and servants (whether the master is a natural person or a corporation makes no difference) is a question which has been repeatedly before this court, and is well settled.

In Railroad Co. v. Whitman, 79 Ala. 328, it is, perhaps, as well settled as elsewhere, and for the purposes in hand we extract what was there said, in consonance with previous and following adjudications of this court on the subject, viz: "The clearly established doctrine now is, that railroad corporations are liable for all acts of wantonness, rudeness or force, done, or caused to be done, by their agents or employés, if done in and about the business or duties assigned to them by the corporation; and the rule for vindictive or punitive damages against such corporations, for abuse by their employés of the duties and powers confided to them, is the same as that which applies to natural persons, who are guilty of similar misconduct. It is confined, however, to abuses perpetrated in the line of duties assigned to them, and does not extend to any tort, wantonness, or wrongful act the employés may commit, in matters not connected with their services to the railroad corporation. In the line of their assigned duties, they stand in the place of the corporation; without the line, the corporation is bound by nothing they may do." Goodloe v. Railroad Co., 107 Ala. 233, 18 So. 166; Lampkin v. Railroad Co., 106 Ala. 287, 17 So. 448; Collins v. Railroad Co., 104 Ala. 390, 16 So. 140; Railroad Co. v. Seales, 100 Ala. 368, 13 So. 917, Gilliam v. Railroad Co., 70 Ala. 268; Cox v. Keakey, 36 Ala. 340.

The complaint in this case, after stating that defendant was the tax collector of Mobile county, and that Duncan P. Case, his son, was one of his deputy tax collectors, charges that "said Duncan P. Case, as such deputy tax collector and under color of his office, wrongfully and illegally endeavored to collect, for his said father and tax collector a fee from the plaintiff, which the defendant in person, or through others, had wrongfully and illegally charged against plaintiff as a...