Ward v. Forbus

• Decision Date: 11 June 1925
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 694
• Citation: 104 So. 765,213 Ala. 306
• Parties: WARD et al. v. FORBUS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

104 So. 765

213 Ala. 306

WARD et al. v. FORBUS.

3 Div. 694

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 11, 1925

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lowndes County; Arthur E. Gamble, Judge.

Action for wrongful taking of property by J.A. Forbus against Arthur Ward, M.C. Fairchild, and O.B. Crocker. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Keith &amp Wilkinson, of Selma, for appellants.

J.R Bell, of Hayneville, and Powell & Hamilton, of Greenville for appellee.

MILLER J.

This is a suit by J.A. Forbus against Arthur Ward and others, for damages for wrongfully taking from his possession a Ford truck, his property.

There were two counts in the complaint as submitted to the jury Count 1 claims damages for the malicious, oppressive willful, wanton, and wrongful taking from his possession this truck; and count 2, as amended, claims damages for wrongfully taking the truck, the property of the plaintiff. The defendants interposed plea of not guilty. The issue was tried by a jury; they returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff against all the defendants, and, from a judgment thereon by the court, this appeal is prosecuted by the defendants.

There are only three errors assigned. They are: (1) The court erred in overruling defendant's motion for new trial; (2) the court erred in overruling this motion on the ground the verdict of the jury was excessive; and (3) the court erred in overruling this motion on the ground that the jury was actuated by bias, prejudice, or other improper motives.

These assignments were grouped and argued by appellant under one head, which was "that the verdict was excessive in that the amount of damages assessed showed that the jury was actuated by bias, prejudice, or other improper motives."

"The unlawful taking of personal property, perpetrated in a rude, wanton, or reckless manner, or accompanied by circumstances of aggravation or oppression, will authorize the imposition of exemplary damages against the wrongdoer." Terry v. Williams, 148 Ala. 468, 472, 41 So. 804, 806. See, also, Burns v. Campbell, 71 Ala. 271, 292.

Each of these counts states a substantial cause of action. Their sufficiency is not questioned by appellant, and exemplary damages could be assessed by the jury if the evidence warranted it. Authorities supra. This automobile belonged to the plaintiff. There is much evidence in the record indicating that defendants took this automobile from the possession of plaintiff wrongfully, accompanied with rudeness and anger, in an insulting manner, under circumstances very aggravating, without any just provocation, and without any right to it. It is not required, nor is it necessary, that this evidence be narrated in this opinion.

The appellants insist the amount of the damages assessed by the jury is excessive, that it is not supported by the evidence, and that it shows they were biased or prejudiced or moved by some improper motive in fixing the amount of it.

This motion for new trial, on that and other grounds, was overruled by the trial court. He saw and heard the witnesses who were examined before the jury in his presence. The bill of exceptions states that "the defendants introduced all the evidence offered in the trial of the cause" on the hearing of the motion, but the bill of exceptions fails...