Morris Hotel Co. v. Henley

Decision Date18 January 1906
Citation40 So. 52,145 Ala. 678
PartiesMORRIS HOTEL CO. ET AL. v. HENLEY.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; Charles A. Senn, Judge.

"Not officially reported."

Action by John W. Henley against Michael Clifford, Annie Clifford doing business under the firm name of Morris Hotel Company and the Morris Hotel Company, a firm composed of Michael Clifford and Annie Clifford. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Reversed.

The appellee sued the appellant in the lower court for an assault and battery alleged to have been committed by Michael Clifford as the agent and manager of the Morris Hotel Company, and in the charge and control of their business as the owners and keepers of a hotel in the city of Birmingham and while acting in the line of his duty and in the conduct of their said business, and lays his damages in the sum of $5,000. There was verdict and judgment for the plaintiff appellee here, in the sum of $500.

The following charges were requested by the plaintiff and given by the court: "(1) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that it is no defense to this action that Michael Clifford did not know, if you believe from the evidence in this case that he did not know, that plaintiff was a guest of and had a room in the Morris Hotel. (2) If the jury believe from the evidence that Michael Clifford, while acting as the manager of the Morris Hotel, and while acting in the line and scope of his authority as such manager, wrongfully struck at, assaulted, and beat plaintiff, then Mrs. Annie Clifford, doing business under the name and style of the Morris Hotel, as well as Michael Clifford himself, are liable in damages for such assault and battery, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this case."

The defendant requested the following written charges, which were refused: "(2) The burden of proof is on plaintiff to show that Mr. Clifford assaulted plaintiff, and that Clifford at the time of the assault was acting within the scope of his authority as the agent of Mrs. Clifford. * * * (7) If you believe from the evidence that the plaintiff first assaulted Mr. Clifford, your verdict must be for the defendant."

George Huddleston, for appellants.

Vaughan & Davidson, for appellee.

HARALSON J.

There was no error in giving charge 1, requested by the plaintiff. The fact that Henley was or was not a guest, or that Michael Clifford, did or did not know that he was, would not justify an assault.

Charge 2, for the plaintiff, was properly given. The undisputed evidence was, that Michael Clifford was the general manager of the hotel and was acting within the scope of the duties intrusted to him at the time he committed the assault. 2 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d Ed.) 990.

The defendants were clearly not entitled to the affirmative charge under the evidence.

Charge 2, requested by defendants, was properly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Nesbit v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1913
    ... ... Baum, 26 Ind. 70; Fowler v. Holmes [City Ct.] 3 ... N.Y.S. 816, to hotel keepers Curtis v. Dinneen, 4 ... Dak. 245 (30 N.W. 148); Wade v. Thayer, 40 Cal. 578; ... cite the following additional: Rogahn v. Foundry, 79 ... Wis. 573 (48 N.W. 669); Morris Co. v. Henley, 145 ... Ala. 678 (40 So. 52); Anderson Co. v. Diaz, 77 Ark ... 606 (92 S.W ... ...
  • Nesbit v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1913
    ...Without quoting from other cases, it is enough to cite the following additional: Rogahn v. Foundry, 79 Wis. 573, 48 N. W. 669;Morris Co. v. Henley, 145 Ala. 678, 40 South. 52;Anderson Co. v. Diaz, 77 Ark. 606, 92 S. W. 861, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 649, 113 Am. St. Rep. 180;Letts v. H. Steamship ......
  • Brown v. Patterson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1926
    ... ... Gambill, 37 So. 290, 140 Ala. 316; Bynum v ... Jones, 59 So. 65, 177 Ala. 431; Morris v ... McClellan, 53 So. 155, 169 Ala. 90; Morris Hotel Co ... v. Henley, 40 So. 52, 145 Ala ... ...
  • Waller v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • November 19, 1940
    ... ... witnesses here who worked for him and saw him try to work the ... mare?' Morris Hotel Co. v. Henley, 145 Ala. 678, ... 40 So. 52; Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476; East T., V ... & ... ...
  • 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