Collum Motor Co. v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
In suits for the malicious'prosecution of a garnishment, this court has recently referred to an old principle settled in Alabama, that defendant is not responsible for the malice of its agent on the doctrine of respondeat superior, and that malice on the part of defendant is necessary. Allison-Russell-Withington Co. v. Sommers, 219 Ala. 33, 121 So. 42.
Count 1 of the complaint alleges that defendant, its servants, agents, or employees, etc., wrongfully, maliciously, and without probable cause, etc., and in count 2, it is further alleged that the act of the servant, agent, or employee was…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- City Delivery Co. v. HenrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1903
- Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land Co. v. DoakSupreme Court of Alabama · 1907
- Alabama Power Co. v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Southern Ry. Co. v. BeatySupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Ex Parte Louisville & N. R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1919
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Southern Railway Company v. SanfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1954
- Glidden Co. v. LaneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Industrial Sav. Bank v. GreenwaldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
- Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. SharitSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- National Supply Co. v. Southern Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.