Case Title: Mims v. Citizens Bank of Prattville

Citation: 372 So. 2d 311

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1979-06-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
372 So. 2d 311 (1979)
Billy Joe MIMS
v.
CITIZENS BANK OF PRATTVILLE, a corporation.
78-112.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 22, 1979.
*312 Harold Howell, Prattville, for appellant.
Theron O. McDowell, Jr., Prattville, for appellee.
FAULKNER, Justice.
Mims appeals from a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, Citizens Bank of Prattville. We reverse.
The current suit, which is before this Court for the second time, was precipitated when the bank seized a truck which allegedly belonged to Mims. The facts are set out in our prior opinion, Mims v. Citizens Bank of Prattville, 355 So. 2d 345 (Ala.1975), in which we reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the bank. On remand Mims amended his complaint to eliminate a detinue action, since the bank had already sold the truck and retained the proceeds. The amended complaint contained two counts which both read as follows:
Count 1 claimed $5,000 compensatory damages and Count 2 sought $25,000 punitive damages. A pre-trial order stated, "Nature of the case. Two counts of the Complaint. Each alleges a cause of action based upon fraud and deceit."
At the close of Mims' case the bank moved for a directed verdict on the theory that Mims had not proved all the necessary elements of fraud and deceit, I. e., he had not shown that there was a false representation by the bank to Mims on which he acted. The trial court agreed with the bank's contention and granted the motion. Mims then moved for a new trial alleging as grounds that the complaint and evidence *313 adduced at trial showed that the default judgment which led to the seizure was obtained by fraud upon the court and denied him due process of law. The motion also contended that the evidence presented showed that the bank's actions interfered with Mims' logging business and supported a claim for unlawful interference with contractual relations. Finally Mims asserted that he had presented sufficient evidence to recover under § 6-5-260, Code 1975, which states, "The owner of personalty is entitled to possession thereof. Any unlawful deprivation of or interference with such possession is a tort for which an action lies." The bank countered by asserting the pre-trial order which purported to limit the cause of action to fraud and deceit. Following denial of his motion for new trial Mims brought this appeal.
From a review of the testimony presented at the second trial it is apparent that Mims presented sufficient evidence to go to the jury on his claims of unlawful interference with his business operations and unlawful deprivation of personalty, § 6-5-260, Code 1975. The bank, however, attempts to use the pre-trial order to limit the cause to fraud and deceit. Here, however, the issues were tried by implied consent of the parties, and there is no doubt that Mims could have amended his pleadings to conform to the evidence under Rule 15(b), ARCP. Under this rule where evidence is introduced or an issue raised with the express consent of the other party or without objection from him, the pleadings shall be deemed amended to conform to the evidence. While a motion to amend the pre-trial order would have been preferred, we believe that the issue was sufficiently raised in the presentation of the evidence. To hold that Mims was absolutely bound by a pre-trial order which omitted causes of action clearly raised in the pleadings (and, in fact, litigated by the parties in the first trial and appeal) would work a manifest injustice in complete contravention of the avowed purpose of our rules of procedure. The directed verdict here was improper.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C. J., and ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
BLOODWORTH, J., concurs in the result.