Hereford v. Brentz

• Decision Date: 08 April 1915
• Docket Number: 827
• Citation: 68 So. 350,192 Ala. 465
• Parties: HEREFORD v. BRENTZ.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

68 So. 350

192 Ala. 465

HEREFORD v. BRENTZ.

No. 827

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 8, 1915

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Madison County; James H Ballentine, Judge.

Action by A.C. Brentz against F.G. Hereford, for illegal arrest and false imprisonment. Judgment for nominal and, from a new trial granted defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Transferred from the Court of Appeals under section 6 of Acts 1911, p 450.

The complaint charges the arrest by C.O. Robinson, who is alleged to have been the deputy sheriff and acting within the scope of his authority, or under the color of his office, under the authority of defendant, who is alleged to be sheriff of Madison county. The appeal is from an order granting a new trial to plaintiff for the giving of charge 7. The court instructs the jury, as matter of law, that the jury could not assess punitive damages or vindictive damages against defendant, even if they should find that Christo Robinson made the arrest with malice towards plaintiff.

S.S Pleasants, of Huntsville, for appellant.

Douglass Taylor and Clarence L. Watts, both of Huntsville, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

The plaintiff was arrested by a regular deputy of the defendant, who was sheriff, as distinguished from a specially deputized agent of the sheriff for a particular purpose.

In speaking of the power of a regular deputy to bind the sheriff while acting within the line or scope of his authority, it was said by this court, speaking through McClellan, J., in the case of Rogers v. Carroll, 111 Ala. 610, 20 So. 602:

"His powers, generally speaking, were those of the sheriff himself, and his acts were those of the sheriff. He had the same power to receive and execute all ordinary process as had the sheriff, and his acts or omissions under or in respect of process were the acts or omissions of the sheriff. In legal contemplation he and the sheriff were one officer, so far as third persons are concerned, as to all questions of civil responsibility."

The general deputy, like the sheriff, is a peace officer and has the same authority to arrest, with or without warrants; and if the deputy, while acting as such, commits a tort or trespass upon another, for which he would be liable, his chief would also be liable in the same degree and to the same extent, civilly, as the deputy himself.

This being the law, the trial court erred in charging the jury that the defendant could not be liable for...