Usrey v. Yarnell, No. 335.
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
| Writing for the Court | Smith |
| Citation | 181 Ark. 804,27 S.W.2d 988 |
| Docket Number | No. 335. |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1930 |
| Parties | USREY et al. v. YARNELL. |
v.
YARNELL.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Craighead County; W. W. Bandy, Judge.
Action by Max O. Usrey and others against Pitts Yarnell and another. From a judgment in favor of the defendant Yarnell, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Cooley & Adams, of Jonesboro, for appellants.
Miller & Yingling, of Searcy, for appellee.
SMITH, J.
This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the circuit court sustaining a demurrer to that portion of appellants' complaint which made J. Pitts Yarnell, as sheriff of White County, a party defendant. The suit was against both Yarnell, as sheriff, and H. P. Pollett, and the complaint alleged the following facts as constituting a cause of action. Pollett, while specially deputized and acting as the agent and deputy of Yarnell, as sheriff of White county, and while armed with process for the arrest of prisoners who had escaped from White county, was en route, by the shortest and most direct route, to Leachville, Mississippi county, where said escaped prisoners were supposed to be, for the purpose of arresting them, and while so engaged he negligently ran his automobile into that of the plaintiff. Judgment was prayed to compensate the damages resulting from the collision.
The statute (section 9152, Crawford & Moses' Dig.) provides that "each sheriff may appoint one or more deputies, for whose official conduct he shall be responsible," and in the case of Edgin v. Talley, 169 Ark. 667, 276 S. W. 591, 593, 42 A. L. R. 1194, we said: "The general rule is that for all civil purposes the acts of a deputy sheriff or constable are those of his principal. Hence a sheriff
Page 989
or constable is liable for the act, default, tort, or other misconduct done or committed by his deputy, colore officii."
The question for decision is, therefore, whether the negligence of Pollett, in colliding with plaintiff's car, under the circumstances alleged, was done colore officii, or was official conduct for the consequences of which his chief should be held liable.
There is here no relation of master and servant, and the complaint alleges only that Pollett was traveling to a place where, upon his arrival, he was to perform an official act; that is, arrest prisoners who had escaped. He was not acting under color of his office while driving his automobile, and he was not engaged in any official conduct at the time he collided with plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Alford, No. 1946.
...to the Bureau. For these reasons, the instant case is distinguishable from Clement v. Dunn, 114 Cal.App. 60, 299 P. 545; Usrey v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988; McVea v. Day, 6 La.App. 382; Humphrey v. Ownby, Mo.App., 104 S.W.2d 398, relied on by counsel for the Casualty In transport......
-
Clark v. West, No. 3789.
...and therefore the sheriff could not be held liable for damages occasioned by the deputy's negligent driving. Usrey v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988 and Humphrey v. Ownby, Mo.App., 104 S.W.2d 398, are to the same effect; while in Williams v. Priddy, 188 Ark. 137, 64 S.W.2d 553, the st......
-
Jones v. Buckelew, 6 Div. 346.
...Culpepper v. United States F. & G. Co., Ga.Sup., 33 S.E.2d 168; Nelson v. Bartell, 4 Wash.2d 174, 103 P.2d 30; Usrey v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988; Gray v. De Bretton, 192 La. 628, 188 So. 722; AEtna C. & S. Co. v. Clark, 136 Tex. 238, 150 S.W.2d 78; Ivy v. Osborne, 152 Tenn. 470,......
-
Culpepper v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co, No. 15045.
...see Nelson v. Bartell, 4 Wash. 2d 174, 103 P.2d 30; Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Clark, 136 Tex. 238, 150 S.W.2d 78; Usrey v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988; Gray v. De Bretton, 192 La. 628, 188 So. 722; Clement v. Dunn, 114 Cal.App. 60, 299 P. 545; Humphrey v. Ownby, Mo.App, 104 S.......
-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Alford, No. 1946.
...to the Bureau. For these reasons, the instant case is distinguishable from Clement v. Dunn, 114 Cal.App. 60, 299 P. 545; Usrey v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988; McVea v. Day, 6 La.App. 382; Humphrey v. Ownby, Mo.App., 104 S.W.2d 398, relied on by counsel for the Casualty In transport......
-
Clark v. West, No. 3789.
...and therefore the sheriff could not be held liable for damages occasioned by the deputy's negligent driving. Usrey v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988 and Humphrey v. Ownby, Mo.App., 104 S.W.2d 398, are to the same effect; while in Williams v. Priddy, 188 Ark. 137, 64 S.W.2d 553, the st......
-
Jones v. Buckelew, 6 Div. 346.
...Culpepper v. United States F. & G. Co., Ga.Sup., 33 S.E.2d 168; Nelson v. Bartell, 4 Wash.2d 174, 103 P.2d 30; Usrey v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988; Gray v. De Bretton, 192 La. 628, 188 So. 722; AEtna C. & S. Co. v. Clark, 136 Tex. 238, 150 S.W.2d 78; Ivy v. Osborne, 152 Tenn. 470,......
-
Culpepper v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co, No. 15045.
...see Nelson v. Bartell, 4 Wash. 2d 174, 103 P.2d 30; Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Clark, 136 Tex. 238, 150 S.W.2d 78; Usrey v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988; Gray v. De Bretton, 192 La. 628, 188 So. 722; Clement v. Dunn, 114 Cal.App. 60, 299 P. 545; Humphrey v. Ownby, Mo.App, 104 S.......