Haygood v. Boothby Realty Co.
Decision Date | 30 March 1961 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 587 |
Citation | 128 So.2d 497,272 Ala. 95 |
Parties | Carrie M. HAYGOOD v. BOOTHBY REALTY COMPANY. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Plaintiff's amended replication is as follows:
J. Robt. Huie and J. Terry Huffstutler, Birmingham, for appellant.
Wm. M. Acker, Jr., Smyer, White, Reid & Acker, Birmingham, for appellee. STAKELTY, Justice.
Carrie M. Haygood (appellant) brought suit against Boothby Realty Company, a corporation (appellee), for maliciously and without probable cause therefor causing the plaintiff to be prosecuted in a civil suit upon a charge of nonpayment of rent under a lease agreement. On May 15, 1958, appellant recovered of the appellee the sum of $5,000 as damages by a jury verdict. On motion by appellee's counsel, the trial court set the judgment aside and ordered a new trial.
On September 23, 1958, the case was tried again and the appellant was awarded damages in the amount of $4,500 by another jury.
On January 12, 1959, the court ordered a remittitur reducing the judgment from $4,500 to $2,000. A remittitur was filed by counsel for appellant. Appellee, Boothby Realty Company, appealed from the judgment entered by the court after the remittitur was filed. The case is reported as Boothby Realty Co. v. Haygood, 269 Ala. 549, 114 So.2d 555.
This court overruled its holding in the case of Penney v. Warren, 217 Ala. 120, 123, 115 So. 16, 18. In that case this court held:
'* * * that where there is an appeal from a primary and inferior court to a higher court, and a trial de novo on the issues of fact, with judgment on the merits of the case in favor of the appealing party, the primary judgment loses its value as evidence of the existence of probable cause. * * *'
This court in overruling its holding in the case of Penney v. Warren, supra, said:
'We feel strongly that a litigant should be entitled to have his rights determined in a court of law without risk of being sued and having to respond in damages, for seeking unsuccessfully to enforce his rights, and we think the better rule is that unless a judgment or decree in prior civil proceedings against the malicious prosecution plaintiff was obtained by fraud, perjury or other improper means, the judgment or decree establishes or shows conclusively the existence of probable cause for bringing the former action even though it was subsequently reversed or set aside, anything in Penney v. Warren, 217 Ala. 120, 115 So. 16 to the contrary notwithstanding. * * *' 269 Ala. 554, 114 So.2d 560.
The case was reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County for a new trial. Upon a new trial the defendant, Boothby Realty Company, whthdrew its plea in short by consent and with leave of the court first had and obtained, filed the following pleas:
'One
'The defendant, for answer to the complaint, says that it is not guilty of the matters therein alleged.
'Two
'The defendant, for answer to the complaint, says as follows:
'Three
'The defendant, for answer to the complaint, says as follows:
'Before the defendant instituted the civil suit here complained of, Mr. James H. Roberts, the agent of defendant who had handled the complained of transaction for defendant with plaintiff and who was most familiar with its details, disclosed to Mr. Rogers H. Bite, an attorney-at-law experienced in rent collections and actively practicing in Birmingham, Alabama, all of the material facts within defendant's knowledge surrounding the claim of non-payment of rent under a lease agreement between defendant and plaintiff and the said Mr. Bite advised defendant that the said civil suit should be instituted.'
Carrie M. Haygood (appellant) did not demur to either of the aforesaid pleas, but filed a replication to each plea of the defendant as follows:
The demurrer of Boothby Realty Company filed to the plaintiff's special replication to 'plea Two' was sustained by the court.
Carrie M. Haygood (appellant) then filed an amended replication to defendant's plea Two. This replication is lengthy and we shall not undertake to set it out. It will appear in the report of the case. It attempts to show that the judgment rendered by the Municipal Court of Birmingham in favor of Bootyby Realty Company, a corporation, against Carrie...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Plumley v. Mockett
...this issue in this related civil case." (Id., at p. 300, italics added.) The court reached a similar conclusion in Haygood v. Boothby Realty Company (1961) 272 Ala. 95 . There, a landlord sued its tenant for nonpayment of rent. (Id., 128 So.2d at p. 500.) The trial court initially entered j......
-
Sprinkle v. Walter L. Couse & Co.
...show that it was necessitated by adverse rulings of the court. Wilbanks v. Mitchell, 239 Ala. 167, 194 So. 513; Haygood v. Boothby Realty Co., 272 Ala. 95, 128 So.2d 497; Davis v. L. & N. R. Co., 14 Ala.App. 200, 69 So. As already indicated, and conceded by appellant, the reasons for taking......
-
Arnold v. Jarvis, 61
...whether there was or was not probable cause for plaintiff's arrest and prosecution. See the similar case of Haygood v. Boothby Realty Co., 272 Ala. 95, 128 So.2d 497 and this treatment therein of our question, with which we fully agree (p. 'This brings us to the pivotal question in the case......
-
Dodd v. Lovett, 6 Div. 822
...16, Alabama Digest. A failure to demur to a plea confesses the legal sufficiency of the plea as a defense. Haygood v. Boothby Realty Company, 272 Ala. 95, 128 So.2d 497 (1961). On demurrer, the court can consider only the objection specified. Turner Coal Co. v. Glover, 101 Ala. 289, 13 So. ......