Morris Hotel Co. v. Henley
Decision Date | 18 January 1906 |
Citation | 40 So. 52,145 Ala. 678 |
Parties | MORRIS HOTEL CO. ET AL. v. HENLEY. |
Court | Alabama 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:
The defendant requested the following written charges, which were refused:
George Huddleston, for appellants.
Vaughan & Davidson, for appellee.
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-
Nesbit v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co.
... ... 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.
...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
... ... 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
... ... 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 ... & ... ...