Holland, for Use and Benefit of Williams v. Mayes
| Decision Date | 07 November 1944 |
| Citation | 19 So.2d 709,155 Fla. 129 |
| Parties | HOLLAND, Governor, for Use and Benefit of WILLIAMS, v. MAYES, Sheriff, et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 24, 1944.
Appeal from Court of Record, Escambia County; Ernest E mason, judge.
F Churchill Mellen, of Pensacola, for appellants.
Fisher & Fisher, of Pensacola, for appellees.
In May, 1941 Howard Mayes as Sheriff of Escambia County, and two of his deputies, Red Salmons and Guy Harvey and Mallory Williams, a constable, went to a restaurant on the outskirts of Pensacola operated by Chris Merinkers to apprehend William McCray who was charged with stealing cigarettes. The party traveled in the Sheriff's car and parked it between the restaurant and the fence which ran about 25 feet to the north. McCray appeared at the fence north of the car about 2 o'clock in the morning and Merinkers went to negotiate with him for the stolen cigarettes. The officers were all parked around the car. At the approach of McCray to the fence, Mallory Williams proceeded east to a gate where the car had entered the lot enclosing the restaurant, followed by Red Salmons. The Sheriff proceeded to the fence where McCray had appeared shouted 'Halt' and fired at him. McCray fled in a northerly direction; Mallory Williams by this time had passed through the gate, turned to the left, and entered the field through which McCray was fleeing and followed him calling 'Halt' and firing at him. He called 'Halt' a second time and fired at McCray again. Immediately after Williams' second shot, Red Salmons who had followed him through the gate and saw a man running, fired in that direction. Williams was found mortally wounded and McCray was later found shot through the leg. Red Salmons admitted that he killed Mallory Williams but testified that when he shot he thought he was shooting at McCray. It was shown that McCray and Williams were dressed alike and were about the same size.
This action was brought by the Governor of Florida on behalf of Doris J. Williams, the widow of Mallory Williams, against Howard Mayes as Sheriff of Escambia County, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company of Baltimore as surety on his bond for the wrongful death of Mallory Williams. The case went to trial on the issue made by the pleas to the declaration and at the conclusion of the testimony, the court directed a verdict for the defendants. This appeal is from the judgment entered on that verdict.
The parties are not agreed as to what questions this Court should answer but the ultimate result of their differences is not material. The real question presented is whether or not under the law of Florida, the Sheriff and his official bondman may be held liable in damages for the negligent acts of the sheriff or his deputies when in the discharge of their official duty.
It was admitted at the threshold of the trial that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of McCray, that the Sheriff's party was attempting to arrest McCray when Williams was killed and that consequently everything which took place in connection with the killing of Mallory Williams was done by virtue of the office of the participants.
Section 30.07, Florida Statutes of 1941, F.S.A., authorizes the Sheriff to appoint deputies, clothes them with the same power as the Sheriff and makes the Sheriff responsible for their negligent acts. Section 30.01, same statutes, requires the Sheriff to post a bond payable to the Governor, the amount of which is determined by the Board of County Commissioners and conditioned on the faithful discharge of the duties of the office.
The law of Florida does not release a sheriff or his deputy from liability for wrongful acts merely because he is sheriff. It is generally held that the Sheriff and his deputy are one and the same person and that the acts of the deputy may be imputed to the Sheriff. There is accordingly no such relation as master and servant or principal and agent existing between them. The Sheriff acts through his deputy, is charged with knowledge of his acts and consents to all acts done officially or under color of his office.
Appellee contends that the killing of Mallory Williams cannot be held as anything more than justifiable or excusable homicide, that the Sheriff and his bondman cannot be held in damages for his death therefor, that suit cannot be maintained on the Sheriff's official bond for his wrongful death and if it could, recovery would be barred for contributory negligence or assumption of risk.
We do not think that the question of assumption of risk or contributory negligence enters into a case of this kind because that is a common-law doctrine concerned with master and servant relation. In our view, the case turns on the question of whether or not a Sheriff is held to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Downs v. U.S.
...us that the District Court's standard was correct. See Cleveland v. City of Miami, 263 So.2d 573, 578 (Fla.1972); Holland v. Mayes, 155 Fla. 129, 19 So.2d 709, 711 (1944); Miriam Mascheck, Inc. v. Mausner, 264 So.2d 859, 861 (Fla.App.1972). Appellants contend that the District Court erred i......
-
Fischer v. Metcalf
...a criminal prosecution."). Our jurisprudence rests on the principle that for every wrong, there is a remedy. Holland ex rel. Williams v. Mayes, 155 Fla. 129, 19 So.2d 709 (1944); Clausell v. Hobart Corp., 506 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Dominguez v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 503 So.2d 364 (Fla. ......
-
Lewis v. Brautigam
...of his acts and consents to all acts done officially or under color of his office." Holland, for Use and Benefit of Williams v. Mayes, 155 Fla. 129, 19 So. 2d 709, 710. See also, Malone v. Howell, 140 Fla. 693, 192 So. 224; 47 Am.Jur., Sheriffs and Constables, § As to the State's Attorney, ......
-
City of Coral Gables v. Giblin, 59-643
...prescribed by law. See Swenson v. Cahoon, 111 Fla. 788, 152 So. 203; Malone v. Howell, 140 Fla. 693, 192 So. 224, 226-27; Holland v. Mayes, 155 Fla. 129, 19 So.2d 709; § 30.07, Fla.Stat., Of particular interest in this regard is the case of Malone v. Howell, supra. Malone's widow brought an......