Sanders v. Humphries
| Decision Date | 25 February 1918 |
| Docket Number | 21079 |
| Citation | 78 So. 168,143 La. 43 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | SANDERS v. HUMPHRIES et al |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
A sheriff is not liable, nor is the surety on his official bond liable, in damages for personal injuries to a citizen inflicted recklessly by a deputy sheriff, unless it was done in violation of an official duty or in an unfaithful or improper performance of an official act.
The allegation that a deputy sheriff, while on duty as such and while acting as deputy, agent, servant, and employe of the sheriff, maliciously and recklessly shot and wounded the plaintiff, does not specifically charge that the wrongful act of the deputy sheriff was done in violation of an official duty or in an unfaithful or improper performance of an official act. Such an allegation, without any specification or averment of fact from which the court or jury might judge whether the wrongful act of the deputy sheriff was a violation or improper performance of an official duty, does not disclose a cause of action against the sheriff or the surety on his official bond for damages for personal injuries. Monroe, C. J., dissenting.
George Wear, Jr., of Jena, for appellant.
C. P. Thornhill, of Columbia, for appellee W. E. Godfrey.
Hudson, Potts, Bernstein & Sholars, of Monroe, for appellee American Surety Co.
OPINION
O'NIELL, J.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon the plaintiff by a deputy sheriff. The other defendants are the sheriff and the surety on his official bond. The suit was dismissed as far as they were concerned, on exceptions of no cause of action. The plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
The only question to be decided, therefore, is whether the allegations of the petition disclose a cause of action against the sheriff and the surety of his official bond, or against either of them. The allegations on which is founded the action against the sheriff and his surety are the following, viz:
(1) That John Humphries, while on duty as a deputy sheriff of the parish of Caldwell, and while acting as deputy, agent, servant and employe of the sheriff, maliciously and recklessly assaulted, shot, and wounded petitioner with a pistol, without cause or provocation.
(2) That, inasmuch as W. E. Godfrey was the sheriff and the employer of John Humphries at the time of the assault upon petitioner, he is liable in solido for the damage done by John Humphries.
(3) That, under the terms and conditions of the sheriff's official bond (attached to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Kaercher v. Roth, 30050.
... ... 70; State v. Gartland, 263 S.W. 165; R.S. 1919, sec. 2151; 30 C.J. 41, par. 196; State ex rel. Brennan v. Dierker, 101 Mo. App. 636; Sanders v. Humphries, 70 So. 168, 143 La. 43; McLain v. Arnold, 174 Pac. 563, 73 Okla. 52; Tate v. Gaugh, 264 Fed. 892; Brown v. Wallace, 101 S.W. 1086, 12 ... ...
-
Foster v. Hampton
... ... 3 ... This court in Sanders v. Humphries, 143 La. 43, 78 So. 168, 169 (1918), stated that: ... " ... (N)either the sheriff nor the surety on his official bond is responsible ... ...
-
Gates v. Hanover Ins. Co.
... ... absence of sufficient evidence to show that the acts were done in violation or in an unfaithful or improper performance of an official act, Sanders v. Humphries, 143 La. 43, 78 So. 168 (1918); deputy was held to have acted in the capacity of a private citizen when he shot a fellow patron of a ... ...
-
Bourque v. Lohr
... ... Palmer, 55 So.2d 68 (La.App.1st Cir. 1952) writ of certiorari refused; Britt v. Merritt, 219 La. 333, 53 So.2d 121 (1951); Sanders v. Humphries, 143 La. 43, 78 So. 168; Gray v. De Bretton, 184 So. 390 (La.App.1st Cir. 1938). In the present case, the defendant insurer is liable ... ...