Lacey v. Hendricks

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtEVANS, J.
Citation164 Ala. 280,51 So. 157
PartiesLACEY ET AL. v. HENDRICKS.
Decision Date13 January 1910

51 So. 157

164 Ala. 280

LACEY ET AL.
v.
HENDRICKS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 13, 1910


Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; A. A. Coleman, Judge.

Action for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment by William Hendricks against C. M. Lacey and another. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

The complaint was as follows (omitting the first four counts): (5) "Plaintiff claims of the defendant $1,000 damages, for that C. M. Lacey, while a justice of the peace in and for precinct 9, in Jefferson county, Alabama, did under cover of his said office unlawfully cause plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned, against the will of plaintiff, for two days, to wit, on the 14th and 15th of October, 1907, on the charge of assault and battery. And plaintiff avers that at the time said C. M. Lacey procured plaintiff's arrest as aforesaid the said C. M. Lacey was qualified as such justice of the peace, and that the said C. M. Lacey as principal and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company as surety had prior to said time made and entered into an obligation payable to the state of Alabama in the sum of $1,000, which said bond or obligation is in words and figures as follows: [Here follows the usual justice of the peace bond.] And plaintiff avers that at the time said C. M. Lacey procured plaintiff's said arrest and imprisonment the said bond was in full force and effect. Plaintiff avers that the arrest and imprisonment of defendant was procured by the said C. M. Lacey without probable cause therefor, and was wrongfully and maliciously done." (6) "Plaintiff claims of defendant $1,000 damages, for that C. M. Lacey as principal, and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company as surety, did on the 3d day of January, 1907, make and enter into an obligation or bond payable to the state of Alabama in the sum of $1,000, which bond or obligation is in words and figures as follows: [Here follows copy of the usual justice of the peace bond.] And plaintiff avers that while the said C. M. Lacey was qualified as such justice of the peace that he, acting under the color of his office, unlawfully caused plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned, against plaintiff's will, on a charge of assault and battery for two days, to wit, on the 14th and 15th of October, 1907. Plaintiff avers that the said arrest and imprisonment was caused by the said C. M. Lacey maliciously and wrongfully, and without probable cause therefor." (7) Same as 6, down to and including the words "against plaintiff's will," where they occur therein together, and adds the following: "By issuing an order of such justice of the peace which is in words and figures as follows: [Here follows mittimus to jailer of Jefferson county, directing him to receive William Hendricks into his custody and retain him until he is legally discharged under an order for the payment of the fine and hard labor for the costs, for the county for 60 days. This mittimus was dated October 7, 1907.] And by reason of such order the said C. M. Lacey caused the plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned for two days, to wit, the 14th and 15th days of October, 1907." (8) Same as 6, down to and including the words "against plaintiff's will," and adds the following: "On the charge of having failed to pay the fine of $10 assessed against plaintiff by the said C. M. Lacey in a former trial for assault and battery in the court of the said C. M. Lacey, from which verdict of the said Lacey plaintiff having appealed to the criminal court of Jefferson county, Alabama, by reason of such order from the said C. M. Lacey, plaintiff was arrested and imprisoned for two days, to wit, October 14th and 15th." (9) Same as the sixth count, down to and including the words "acting under color of his office," and adds the following: "Violated the condition of the said bonds or conditions by unlawfully causing plaintiff to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Hoomes, 2 Div. 937.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 Abril 1929
    ...described to the jury. It is also a general rule that a witness is not permitted to state conclusions of law (Lacey v. Hendricks, 164 Ala. 280, 51 So. 157, 137 Am. St. Rep. 45) as the effect of an appeal bond; or legal status of a transaction (McCalman v. State, 96 Ala. 98, 11 So. 408; Love......
  • Pickett v. Richardson, 1 Div. 671.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 5 Noviembre 1931
    ...false imprisonment; Early v. Fitzpatrick, 161 Ala. 171, 49 So. 686, 135 Am. St. Rep. 123, for punishing for contempt; Lacey v. Hendricks, 164 Ala. 280, 51 So. 157, 137 Am. St. Rep. 45, for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution; Broom v. Douglass, 175 Ala. 268, 57 So. 860, 44 L. R. A.......
  • Yaselli v. Goff, No. 248.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 5 Abril 1926
    ...what their motives may be, they cannot be inquired into." And, see, to the same effect, Cason v. Bone, 43 Ark. 17; Lacey v. Hendricks, 164 Ala. 280, 51 So. 157, 137 Am. St. Rep. 45; Legates v. Lingo, 8 Houst. (Del.) 154, 32 A. 80; Kress v. State, 65 Ind. 106; Moser v. Summers, 172 Ky. 553, ......
  • Broom v. Douglass
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 15 Febrero 1912
    ...Coleman v. Roberts, 113 Ala. 323, 21 So. 449, 36 L. R. A. 84, 59 Am. St. Rep. 111; Woodruff v. Stewart, 63 Ala. 206; Lacey v. Hendricks, 164 Ala. 280, 51 So. 157, 137 Am. St. Rep. 45. (5) When such judge acts judicially with respect to a subject-matter of which he has a general jurisdiction......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Hoomes, 2 Div. 937.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 Abril 1929
    ...described to the jury. It is also a general rule that a witness is not permitted to state conclusions of law (Lacey v. Hendricks, 164 Ala. 280, 51 So. 157, 137 Am. St. Rep. 45) as the effect of an appeal bond; or legal status of a transaction (McCalman v. State, 96 Ala. 98, 11 So. 408; Love......
  • Pickett v. Richardson, 1 Div. 671.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 5 Noviembre 1931
    ...false imprisonment; Early v. Fitzpatrick, 161 Ala. 171, 49 So. 686, 135 Am. St. Rep. 123, for punishing for contempt; Lacey v. Hendricks, 164 Ala. 280, 51 So. 157, 137 Am. St. Rep. 45, for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution; Broom v. Douglass, 175 Ala. 268, 57 So. 860, 44 L. R. A.......
  • Yaselli v. Goff, No. 248.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 5 Abril 1926
    ...what their motives may be, they cannot be inquired into." And, see, to the same effect, Cason v. Bone, 43 Ark. 17; Lacey v. Hendricks, 164 Ala. 280, 51 So. 157, 137 Am. St. Rep. 45; Legates v. Lingo, 8 Houst. (Del.) 154, 32 A. 80; Kress v. State, 65 Ind. 106; Moser v. Summers, 172 Ky. 553, ......
  • Broom v. Douglass
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 15 Febrero 1912
    ...Coleman v. Roberts, 113 Ala. 323, 21 So. 449, 36 L. R. A. 84, 59 Am. St. Rep. 111; Woodruff v. Stewart, 63 Ala. 206; Lacey v. Hendricks, 164 Ala. 280, 51 So. 157, 137 Am. St. Rep. 45. (5) When such judge acts judicially with respect to a subject-matter of which he has a general jurisdiction......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT