Hewitt v. Lamb

• Decision Date: 19 May 1908
• Parties: HEWITT. v. LAMB.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

130 Ga. 709

61 S.E. 716

HEWITT.

v.LAMB.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 19, 1908.

1. Reward — Parties Entitled to — Evidence.

B. offered a reward of $1,000 for the arrest and delivery of one P. to the sheriff of Washington county, in the state of Georgia. P. was arrested in the state of California by H., with the assistance of others, whose services had been procured by H. The prisoner was delivered to the agent of the slate of Georgia, who in turn brought the prisoner to this state and delivered him to the sheriff of Washington county. Held, that the party making the arrest in California, and causing the prisoner to be held until he could be turned over to the agent of this state, was entitled to the reward.

2. Trial—Instructions.

The failure of the court to give a charge unauthorized by the pleadings in the case was not error.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 46, Trial, §§ 587-596.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Washington County; B. T. Rawlings, Judge.

Actions by Thomas Hewitt against one Beall and others, and by S. C. Lamb against the same defendants. Plaintiffs were required to interplead. Judgment was rendered for Lamb, and Hewitt brings error. Affirmed.

Beall and others, directors of the Davisboro Bank, offered a reward of $1,000 for the arrest and delivery to the sheriff of Washington county, Ga., of the body of Maro S. Potter. Potter was arrested in California and delivered to the sheriff at Sandersville, Ga. Hewitt brought suit against Beall and others, claiming the reward, on the ground that he had caused the arrest by his agents, and had gone after Potter, brought him back to Georgia, and delivered him to the sheriff of Washington county. Lamb brought suit against the same defendants, alleging that one Hall had arrested Potter, and had him lodged in the police station in Los Angeles, Cal.; "that on May 4, 1905, said Maro S. Potter was delivered by said Hall and the authorities of said police station to one Tom Hewitt, the agent appointed by the Governor of this state to bring said Maro S. Potter to this state, to be delivered to the sheriff of said county, at Sandersville therein, and afterwards, to wit, on May 9, 1905, said Maro S. Potter was delivered to the sheriff of said county at Sandersville;" that thereupon said Hall became entitled to the reward; and that said Hall had transferred his claim to said Lamb. The defendants filed an answer in each case, admitting the offering of the reward, and stating that they had had the sum thereof in court, and in each case set up the bringing of the other suit, and prayed that the two plaintiffs be required to interplead. Hewitt and Lamb interpleaded, and upon the trial a verdict was rendered in favor of Lamb for the whole amount of the reward. Hewitt's motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted.

The motion for a new trial contained, besides the general grounds, the following: (1) Because the court erred in charging the jury as follows: "I charge you further, along that line, if the acts or services relied on as constituting the consideration for a promise of reward constituted the proximate cause of the result contemplated by the offer, the consideration will be held to be substantially performed and the contract complete." Error is assigned on this charge for the reason that it is a misstatement of the law governing the case; the evidence showing that the offer of reward was for the arrest and delivery of Potter to the sheriff of Washington county, Ga., at Sandersville, and the suit being brought on an express contract as set forth in said offer. (2) Because the court erred iu charging the jury as follows: "If you find, from the evidence, that Potter was arrested by Hall, or by a policeman at his instance and request, and was landed in the barracks of Los Angeles to await requisition papers from the Governor of this state, and you further find that Potter was kept in custody in California at Hall's instance and request, and was afterwards delivered to the agent of this state, who received Potter and delivered him to the sheriff, then Hall would be entitled to the reward, and Lamb would be entitled to recover as Hall's assignee." Error is assigned on this charge for the reason that it was a misstatement of the law governing this case; the evidence showing that by its terms the reward was for the arrest and delivery of Potter to the sheriff in Sanders-ville, Ga. Error is further assigned on this charge because it gave the right to the jury to consider a new contract, different from that proved, and was unauthorized under the evidence and pleadings. (3) Because the court failed to charge the jury that if they found, under the evidence, that Lamb was entitled to recover, and that Hewitt did go after and bring back Potter from Los Angeles, Cal., it would be their duty to look to the evidence and determine what expenses were incurred by Hewitt; and if they...