Hereford v. Brentz

68 So. 350, 192 Ala. 465, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 58
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 8, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 68 So. 350 (Hereford v. Brentz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hereford v. Brentz, 68 So. 350, 192 Ala. 465, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 58 (Ala. 1915).

Opinion

ANDERSON, C. J.

The plaintiff was arrested by a regular deputy of the defendant, who was sheriff, as distinguished from a specially deputized agent of the sheriff for a particular purpose.

In speaking of the power of a regular deputy to bind the sheriff while acting within the line or scope of his authority, it was said by this court, speaking through McClellan, J., in the case of Rogers v. Carroll, 111 Ala. 610, 20 South. 602: “His powers, generally speaking, were those of the sheriff himself, and his acts were those of the sheriff. He had the same power to receive and execute all ordinary process as had the sheriff, and his acts or omissions under or in respect of process were the act or omissions of the sheriff. In legal contemplation he and the sheriff were one officer, so far as third persons are concerned, as to all questions of civil responsibility.”

(1) The general deputy, like the sheriff, is a peace officer and has the same authority to arrest, with or without warrants; and if the deputy, while acting as such, commits a tort or trespass upon another, for which he would be liable, his chief would also be liable in the same degree and to the same extent, civilly, as the deputy himself.

(2) This being the law, the trial court erred in charging the jury that the defendant could not be liable for punitive or exemplary damages, although the arrest by his deputy was wrongful and malicious; and, as the said trial court committed reversible error in this respect, it properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and the judgment, in so doing must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

McClellan, Sayre, and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wyres v. State
29 So. 2d 155 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1947)
Mosely v. Kennedy
17 So. 2d 536 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1944)
Leath v. Smith
200 So. 623 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1941)
Giles v. Parker
159 So. 826 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
National Surety Co. v. Boone
151 So. 447 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
Holland v. Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland
145 So. 131 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Miles v. Wright
194 P. 88 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 So. 350, 192 Ala. 465, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hereford-v-brentz-ala-1915.