
    1596.
    Speth v. Maxwell, executrix.
    Action for damages, from city court of Kichmond county— Judge Eve. October 22, 1909.
    Submitted February 11, —
    Decided October 1, 1909.
    A refrigerator and an ice-box in use in the store of Speth, in his milk and butter business, were seized under an attachment sued out by Maxwell. The trial of a traverse of the attachment resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of Speth, .and he sued Maxwell for damages, alleging that the trespass of Maxwell in causing the seizure and removal of the property forced him to close up his business; that through the trespass he suffered actual damage, in the loss of his refrigerator, ice-box, and stock of goods, amounting to $200; in the closing up of his business and consequent enforced idleness for five months, $500; and in damage through the humiliation to which he was subjected by the trespass, $1,000. It was alleged that Maxwell, in causing the levy, acted with malice and without probable cause. On the trial of the .action for damages there was evidence as to actual damage to the plaintiff’s business, in consequence of the seizure. The court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant; to which the plaintiff excepted.
    
      F. W. Gapers, for plaintiff,
    cited: Ga. R. 80/508; 67/58 (4); Civil Code, §3844.
    
      G. E. ■& B. S. Cohen, for. defendant,
    cited: Ga. R. 29/64; 30/519; 54/473; 72/480; 73/534; 75/73; 79/638; 86/238; 96/148; 96/730; 104/235; 118/140-41; Civil Code, §3843.
   Russell, J.

Under the ruling in Williams v. Inman, (1 Ga. App. 321 2, 3), the plaintiff was entitled to recover actual damages, irrespective of malice or want of probable cause. The questions of malice and want of probable cause should have been submitted to the jury only as to the allowance of exemplary damages in addition to the actual damages which the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the evidence. Consequently, it was error to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant.

Judgment reversed.  