History
  • No items yet
midpage
Williams v. Hayes
16 Ala. App. 321
Ala. Ct. App.
1918
Check Treatment

The first count of the complaint is in trespass for false imprisonment, and the second in case for malicious prosecution. The case was tried in the court below on the assumption that the process under which plaintiff was arrested and tried was void, under a decision of the Supreme Court, not cited by either of the parties in brief, and we will treat the case on the same theory.

The plaintiff recovered nominal damages, and from the judgment on the verdict of the jury appeals.

During the progress of the trial, the plaintiff offered evidence to show that by reason of his arrest and prosecution he incurred expense in the employment of counsel to protect him against the unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution, and the court sustained an objection interposed by the defendant to this evidence, and correctly so, because such damages were not specially claimed in the complaint.

As soon as this ruling was announced, the plaintiff asked leave of court to amend the complaint so as to specially claim such damages, and the court declined to allow the amendment, and in this ruling committed reversible error. Fields v. Karter, 121 Ala. 329, 25 So. 800; Springfield Fire Ins. Co. v. De Jarnett, 111 Ala. 248, 19 So. 995; Boshell v. Cunningham, 200 Ala. 579, 76 So. 937.

Reversed and remanded.

Case Details

Case Name: Williams v. Hayes
Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jan 22, 1918
Citation: 16 Ala. App. 321
Docket Number: 8 Div. 440.
Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.