Case Title: Tarver v. Household Finance Corporation

Citation: 277 So. 2d 330

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1973-05-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
277 So. 2d 330 (1973)
Norman L. TARVER
v.
HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION.
SC 258.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 3, 1973.
*331 Fred F. Smith, Jr., Prichard, for appellant.
Perloff, Reid & Briskman, Mobile, for appellee.
BLOODWORTH, Justice.
Plaintiff (appellant here), Norman Tarver, filed suit against defendant (appellee here), Household Finance, alleging that defendant had wrongfully caused a garnishment to be levied against his wages. The complaint was in two counts. Defendant filed demurrer thereto which was sustained. Plaintiff amended, defendant refiled its demurrer thereto, and the demurrer was again sustained. Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the action. It was granted, and the cause was dismissed. The order of dismissal was thereafter set aside and plaintiff took a non suit, appealing the last adverse ruling on the pleadings to the Court of Civil Appeals. That court reversed and remanded the cause in Tarver v. Household Finance Corp., 47 Ala.App. 273, 253 So. 2d 333, holding amended Count II to be sufficient against the demurrer interposed.
After remandment, plaintiff again amended his complaint by increasing the amount of damages claimed from $5,000 to $10,000. Defendant refiled its demurrer, with some additional grounds, and the same was sustained. Plaintiff then filed "Amended Count III," and increased the amount sued for to $25,000. Defendant refiled its demurrer thereto, which was sustained. Plaintiff then took another voluntary *332 non suit and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. The case was transferred from that court to this court, because the amount claimed by plaintiff was in excess of the jurisdictional amount of that court. Sec. 11, Act 987, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session 1969, Vol. II, p. 1744, approved September 12, 1969 (Sec. 111(11), Title 13, Code of 1940, as Recompiled 1958).
The sole question before us is whether the trial court's action in sustaining the defendant's demurrer to "Amended Count III" of the complaint was erroneous or not. We think it was and reverse and remand.
In "Amended Count III," plaintiff seeks damages of $25,000, averring that defendant procured and had issued a writ of garnishment from the General Sessions Court of Mobile County on plaintiff's wages and that at the time the writ of garnishment was issued no valid judgment existed against him in the General Sessions Court of Mobile County, because he had, at the time the writ of garnishment was issued, appealed the judgment on which the garnishment issued to the Circuit Court of Mobile County. Plaintiff further avers that he had appealed an adverse ruling of the Circuit Court of Mobile County in said case to the "Court of Appeals of the State of Alabama," and that no valid judgment existed in the General Sessions Court of Mobile County on which the writ of garnishment could be based. Plaintiff further avers that defendant "knowingly, willfully, intentionally or maliciously procured said writ of garnishment to be issued" for the purpose of extorting money from the plaintiff. As damages, plaintiff avers that he lost time from work, was placed in a bad light with his employer, his job was placed in danger, and he was caused to spend money for attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff's allegations in "Amended Count III" are strikingly similar to those contained in the third count in Dudley v. Stansberry, 5 Ala.App. 491, 59 So. 379 (1912). In that case the then Court of Appeals held the count to be sufficient, stating:
*333 This court distinguished between actions for malicious prosecution and for abuse of process in the case of Dickerson v. Schwabacher, 177 Ala. 371, 58 So. 986 (1912), viz:
It is clear that causing a writ of garnishment to be issued for the purpose of extorting money from the plaintiff, as was alleged in "Amended Count III," would be "for a purpose not justified by the law."
In Prosser on Torts (4th ed.), § 121, pp. 856-8, the distinction between the two actions is discussed, viz:
Most of defendant's grounds of demurrer are quite general, but four of them specifically take the point that plaintiff does not aver want of probable cause and that plaintiff does not aver that the original suit, on which this cause is based, terminated in the plaintiff's favor. It will be seen from the foregoing that the termination of the original suit in plaintiff's favor is not an element of a cause of action for abuse of process. It would appear that, contrary to the above-quoted statement from Prosser on Torts, want of probable *334 cause is an element of an action for abuse of process to be averred and proved in Alabama. Dudley v. Stansberry, supra.
Plaintiff sufficiently alleged want of probable cause in the institution of the proceedings in this case in his "Amended Count III." For in the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Miller, 218 Ala. 158, 117 So. 668 (1928), this court held:
In his "Amended Count III," the plaintiff avers that at the time the writ of garnishment was issued, no valid judgment existed against him in behalf of defendant, Household Finance, in the General Sessions Court of Mobile County, and that defendant "knowingly, willfully, intentionally or maliciously procured said writ of garnishment to be issued and levied upon the plaintiff's wages, for the purpose of extorting from him money * * *." Under our authorities, these averments import that the writ of garnishment was sued out without probable cause.
Thus, plaintiff's "Amended Count III" sufficiently alleges a cause of action for abuse of process, and the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and remanded.
Defendant, however, insists that we may take judicial notice of the records of the Court of Civil Appeals, which would reveal that the original judgment was not "appealed" from the General Sessions Court to the Circuit Court but that a "common law writ of certiorari" was prayed for and issued. No cases are cited for this proposition, nor are we aware of any to this effect. The case at bar is before us on the pleadings alone, and it is on that basis that our decision is based. Since the allegation is that the original action was "appealed," this is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact on the trial of this cause.
As we view plaintiff's "Amended Count III" to be sufficient against the demurrers interposed, the judgment of the trial court in sustaining the demurrers is due to be reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
COLEMAN, McCALL, FAULKNER and JONES, JJ., concur.