Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

77 Ga. 301

Mitchell v. Malone

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided December 21, 1886

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1886-12-21

<p>The sheriff of a certain county was requested, by letter from the authorities of another county, to arrest a person named, who was indicted for murder in the latter county. Upon receipt of the request, and without any warrant or other authority, the sheriff proceeded to another county than his own, arrested the plaintiff in this suit, tied and hand-cuffed him, carried him to the county of his (the sheriff’s) residence, committed him to jail, and subsequently sent him thence to the county from which the request came, where it was ascertained that the plaintiff was not the party wanted, and he was discharged from arrest:</p> <p>Held that, under these facts, the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages, and a verdict for the defendants was contrary to law.</p> <p>(a.) If the, sheriff was honestly mistaken as to the identity of the person accused, or if he acted prudently and cautiously in ascertaining the truth of the matter, these facts might go in mitigation. of the damages, but would not altogether defeat a recovery.</p> <p>(6.) Although two successive verdicts were found for the defendants, it was proper to grant a second new trial under the facts stated,</p> <p>(c.) No opinion is expressed as to whether the damages to be recovered should be exemplary, actual or merely nominal.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-12-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 1978

10 state decisions

201886189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hall, Justice.

¶1William Malone brought suit against Mitchell, sheriff of Rockdale county, for arresting and imprisoning him wrongfully and without authority of law; and two trials have been had, in both of which there were verdicts for the defendant, and each time the verdict has been set aside and a new trial granted solely upon the ground that it was not only contrary to law and evidence, but without any *305evidence to support it. That this judgment granting a second new trial was correct, there can be no question. The sheriff, by letter from the authorities of Putnam county, was requested to arrest one John Malone, who was indicted for murder in that county. Upon receipt of that request, and without any warrant or other authority, he proceeded to Newton county and arrested the plaintiff in this suit, tied and hand-cuffed him and carried him to Conyers, in Rockdale county, where he committed him to jail, and sent him thence to Putnam county, where it was ascertained that he was not the party wanted, and where he was discharged from arrest. As to these facts,.there is not the least controversy. • The case as made entitles the plaintiff to damagesand while it may be insisted that the fact that the sheriff was honestly mistaken as to the identity oí the party accused, if that be found so by the jury, or that he acted prudently and cautiously in ascertaining the truth of this matter, should go in mitigation of the damages, it will not defeat the recovery. Code, §§2968,2969; Broom’s C. L., 683, et seq. So long as juries disregard such a manifest right to redress for wrong so clearly established, their verdict ought to be set aside. Whether the damages found shall prove so inadequate or excessive as to show improper bias or prejudice, will be questions for the determination of the superior court when they properly arise, and we intimate nothing as to what the finding should be, or whether this was a wilful and negligent wrong requiring exemplary damages, or such as will compensate the party for loss of time, expenses incurred, etc., or.'such as are merely nominal; all that we determine is, that he was entitled to recover such damages as the evidence showed he had sustained.

¶2Judgment affirmed,

/77/ga/301 · .json · Public domain