Rochester-Hall Drug Co. v. Bowden

• Decision Date: 04 October 1928
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 183
• Citation: 118 So. 674,218 Ala. 242
• Parties: ROCHESTER-HALL DRUG CO. v. BOWDEN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

118 So. 674

218 Ala. 242

ROCHESTER-HALL DRUG CO. v. BOWDEN.

6 Div. 183

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 4, 1928

Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 1928

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Suit by Walter Bowden against the Rochester-Hall Drug Company for false imprisonment, etc. Judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the Court of Appeals (118 So. 671), and plaintiff applies for certiorari. Writ granted.

Rudulph & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.

W.E Howard, of Birmingham, for appellee.

FOSTER J.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals, sought to be reviewed contains a statement of facts which such court ascertained to exist from the record, and applies to those facts certain principles of law, resulting in a holding that, from them appellant was entitled to the general charge. The principles of law asserted by the court are correctly stated.

While the rule has frequently been referred to by this court that upon certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review its rulings, it will not review the facts "for the purpose of revising the application of same to the law by said Court of Appeals" (Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91; Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 58 So. 992; Ex parte Savannah Williams, 182 Ala. 34, 62 So. 63), this court, however, will review the rulings of said court, to ascertain if it has correctly determined legal conclusions from facts found by it to exist in the record, or has misapplied the law to such facts (Lancaster v. State, 214 Ala. 2, 106 So. 617).

For the purpose of such review we have examined the facts found, and cannot agree with that court to the extent of holding that appellant is entitled to the affirmative charge on such facts. The sufficiency of the evidence for consideration by the jury, in cases of this nature, as to whether an agent or employé, in the commission of a wrong, was acting in the line or scope of his employment, has been considered by this court in numerous cases. Some of them may be cited as applicable. Miller-Brent Lumber Co. v. Stewart, 166 Ala. 657, 51 So. 943, 21 Ann.Cas. 1149; Robinson v. Greene, 148 Ala. 434, 43 So. 797; Dixie Const. Co. v. McCauley, 211 Ala. 683, 101 So. 601; So. Ry. Co. v. Beaty, 212 Ala. 608, 103 So. 658.

The rule which has been approved for determining whether certain conduct of an employé is within the line and scope of his employment is substantially that, if an employé is engaged to perform a certain service, whatever he does to that end, or in furtherance of the employment, is deemed by law to be an act done within the scope of the employment. Gulf, M. &amp N.R. Co. v. Havard,...