Morgan v. Baird
| Decision Date | 21 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 817. |
| Citation | 219 Ala. 225,121 So. 526 |
| Parties | MORGAN v. BAIRD. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 18, 1929.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O. A. Steele, Judge.
Action for malicious prosecution by J. W. S. Baird against H. J Morgan. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
W. J Boykin, of Gadsden, and O. D. Street & Son, of Birmingham and W. R. Bradford, of Albertville, for appellant.
E. O. McCord & Son, of Gadsden, for appellee.
The complaint is in Code form for malicious prosecution. Code, vol. 4, p. 506, Form 20. It alleges the arrest of plaintiff under warrant on a charge of selling or removing personal property with the purpose to hinder, delay, or defraud the holder of a lawful claim thereto by virtue of a lien created by law, etc. Code, § 4925.
The warrant under which plaintiff was arrested recited, "An indictment having been found *** for the offense of selling property covered by a lien or claim," and commanded his arrest to answer such indictment in the circuit court, etc.
It is insisted this warrant was void, in that it described no offense against the law; that the warrant being void rather than defective or irregular, the remedy is in trespass for false imprisonment, and not in case for malicious prosecution.
We are not disposed to enter upon an inquiry whether this warrant was void in the sense that an officer would not be protected in its execution. This subject was considered and decisions reviewed in the recent case of Phillips v. Morrow, 213 Ala. 139, 104 So. 260, 40 A. L. R. 285. Nor to consider when a judicial officer is liable for the issuance of a warrant upon a complaint made before him charging no offense under the law. See Broom v. Douglass, 175 Ala. 268, 57 So. 860, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 164, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1155.
Here the warrant was issued by the clerk upon the return into court of a valid indictment found under Code, § 4925. It does not appear that the prosecutor, defendant here, in any way directed or influenced the clerk in issuing a void warrant, nor that, with knowledge of fatal defects therein, if such there be, he participated in any trespass upon the person of plaintiff.
In such case there is no false imprisonment chargeable to him who has procured a valid indictment. Oates v. Bullock, 136 Ala. 537, 33 So. 835, 96 Am. St. Rep. 38.
Malicious prosecution is the putting of the processes of law in operation maliciously and without probable cause, leading on in due course to the arrest of the victim.
A valid indictment found, a warrant or order to arrest upon such indictment issued by the proper officer, and followed by the arrest of the accused, brings him within the jurisdiction of the court for trial. Under our system a habeas corpus proceeding would be at once followed by a proper capias, and the holding of the accused for trial. It would not effect his discharge. Knox v. State, 167 Ala. 93, 52 So. 526.
In this situation the accused need not and should not stop to inquire whether he has legal cause to resist arrest for want of a valid warrant.
A due submission to lawful authority suggests the course taken here, the giving of bail and coming into court, thus submitting his person to valid judicial proceedings there pending.
If these proceedings have been instituted as the result of malice and without probable cause, the wrongdoer is not relieved because some other has committed another wrong in effecting the arrest contemplated. The arrest and consequent injury are the result of and in direct causal connection with the wrongful prosecution. The remedy as against the prosecutor is malicious prosecution, not false imprisonment. Strain v. Irwin, 195 Ala. 414, 419, 70 So. 734.
Plaintiff Baird, was a tenant of defendant, Morgan. The cotton, the disposition of which led to the prosecution, was grown in Etowah county. It was hauled to defendant's gin in Albertville in Marshall county. When ginned it was stored in defendant's warehouse in Albertville. Mr. Hooper, a banker, held several mortgages on the cotton, some executed by both Baird and Morgan, and some by Baird alone. The warehouse receipts or tickets were turned over to Mr. Hooper. Evidence tends to show this was by common consent of all parties. In the following spring the cotton was sold. It appears Baird and Hooper co-operated in making the sale, and at Hooper's instance the entire proceeds were turned over to him as mortgagee and holder of the warehouse receipts. These were delivered to the purchaser Alford, who then demanded and finally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors
...of known material facts, the intentional thwarting of a fair investigation. American Surety Co. v. Pryor, supra; Morgan v. Baird, 219 Ala. 225, 121 So. 526; Smith v. Dollar, But this does not mean, as here insisted, that it was the duty of appellees to furnish the grand jury with witnesses ......
-
Pickett v. Richardson
... ... merely exceeds his jurisdiction, if his acts are not attended ... with corruption or bad faith. Morgan v. Baird, 219 ... Ala. 225, 121 So. 526; Broom v. Douglass, supra; Blancett v ... Wimberley, supra; Burgin v. Sullivan, 151 Ala. 416, ... 44 So ... ...
-
National Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bowen
...induced by fraud, subornation, suppression of testimony, or other like misconduct of the party seeking the indictment. Morgan v. Baird, 219 Ala. 225, 121 So. 526 (1929). In the instant case, the indictment was induced by false evidence, and when the district attorney discovered the falsity ......
-
Sims v. Kent
...The transcript of the pertinent entries in the grand jury docket was admitted in evidence without objection or error. Morgan v. Baird, 219 Ala. 225, 121 So. 526; Shannon v. Simms, 146 Ala. 673, 40 So. We see no valid objection thereafter to the action of the court in permitting the clerk, h......