Herman Saks & Sons v. Ivey, 6 Div. 657.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 657. |
| Citation | 26 Ala.App. 240,157 So. 265 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Parties | HERMAN SAKS & SONS et al. v. IVEY. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Richard V. Evans Judge.
Action for damages by Mrs. J. B. Ivey against Herman Saks & Sons and John H. Roper, Jr. From a judgment granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Beddow Ray & Jones, of Birmingham, for appellants.
Wilkinson & Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Plaintiff (appellee) sued defendants (appellants) for a wrongful unlawful, and malicious violation of a criminal statute-sections 3194, 3195, of the Code of 1928. The complaint sets out in haec verba the letter. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants mailed the certain letter to plaintiff by United States mail and that the plaintiff received it.
The record is without dispute that the letter was mailed to plaintiff, as alleged, and received by the plaintiff, as alleged.
Plaintiff claimed damages alleging she was greatly shocked, frightened humiliated, and embarrassed, was made nervous, made sick and sore for a long period of time, and caused to suffer great mental anguish and was annoyed and inconvenienced.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $1, whereupon plaintiff, in due time, filed a motion for a new trial and this motion was heard by the court, and by the court granted, the verdict and judgment set aside, and plaintiff granted a new trial.
The view we take of this appeal is that it falls within the class of cases, where the judgment of the trial judge should be given full consideration and every presumption indulged in its favor. The letter, made the proximate cause of the injury, is one that never ought to have been sent to any one and certainly not to one who was not indebted to the firm. The evident purpose of the letter is to frighten delinquent debtors into settlement of their accounts. A practice never countenanced by courts of justice. What effect the receipt of such a letter would have upon a delicate, refined, nervous gentlewoman is of easy inference. The jury found that this plaintiff was injured by the letter. If so, she was entitled to substantial damages in such amount as the jury may fix, and a verdict for $1 does not amount to compensation. The least amount which could be considered would be such an amount as would carry with it the costs of the prosecution. It is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lyons v. Zale Jewelry Co., 42382
...183, 105 F.2d 62, 6 N.C.C.A.,N.S., 564; Barnett v. Collection Service Co. (1932), 214 Iowa 1303, 242 N.W. 25; Herman Saks & Sons v. Ivey (1934), 26 Ala.App. 240, 157 So. 265; La Salle Extention University v. Fogarty (1934), 126 Neb. 457, 253 N.W. 424, 91 A.L.R. 1491; Kirby v. Jules Chain St......
-
Harris v. Jones
...1 Cases from 21 jurisdictions are collected in Annot., 64 A.L.R.2d 100, § 8, at 119-26. In addition, see Herman Saks & Sons v. Ivey, 26 Ala.App. 240, 157 So. 265 (1934); Rugg v. McCarty, 173 Colo. 170, 476 P.2d 753 (1970); Hiers v. Cohen, 31 Conn.Supp. 305, 329 A.2d 609 (Super.Ct.1973); Kni......
-
Taylor v. Baptist Medical Center, Inc.
...Torts, 49 Harvard L.Rev. 1033, 1048 (1936). This distinction, however, was neither significant nor followed in Herman Saks & Sons v. Ivey, 26 Ala.App. 240, 157 So. 265 (1934). In that case the defendant had sent to the plaintiff a collection letter whose terms violated a criminal statute (C......
-
George v. Jordan Marsh Co.
...Retail Credit Men, 70 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 105 F.2d 62; Maze v. Employees' Loan Soc., 217 Ala. 44, 114 So. 574; Herman Saks & Sons v. Ivey, 26 Ala.App. 240, 157 So. 265; Delta Fin, Co. v. Ganakas, 93 Ga.App. 297, 91 S.E.2d 383; Barnett v. Collection Serv. Co., 214 Iowa 1303, 242 N.W. 25; LaSal......