Bacon v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1884 |
| Citation | 21 N.W. 324,55 Mich. 224 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | BACON v. MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO. |
Error to Berrien.
Geo. S Clapp, for plaintiff and appellant.
Edwards & Stewart, for defendant.
Plaintiff brought an action against defendant for libel. The defendant is a corporation operating a line of railroad between Detroit, Michigan, and Chicago, in the state of Illinois. It employs a large number of men in different capacities, and there are 29 different places along the line of the road where agents are employed who have authority to employ men to perform services for the company. In order to secure competent and reliable employes, and to prevent imposition from discharged employes being again employed upon another part of the road, the defendant makes and keeps what it calls a "discharge list," in which is entered monthly the names of such employes as are discharged during the current month, their occupation, and under the heading of "Why Discharged" the reason or cause of discharge. Such lists are sent to each of the 29 agents or heads of departments upon whom devolve duties touching the employment supervision, or selection of servants or employes of defendant. The defendant regards the keeping and distribution of such discharge lists among its heads of department as an essential and necessary method of prosecuting its business and as a necessary safeguard to protect itself against the employment of inefficient and unfit persons that have been discharged on some other part of the line.
The plaintiff resided at Niles, on the line of defendant's road, and had worked for defendant four or five years, first as a mason and for the last two or three years as a carpenter. About the fourteenth or fifteenth of November 1882, he was at work for defendant at Michigan City, and rode from there to his home at Niles on the fast train. This train has a dining car attached, and a passenger before arriving at Niles left his overcoat in his seat and went forward into the dining car. Plaintiff claims that by mistake, when he got off at Niles, he took the passenger's overcoat in place of his own, and went into the tool-shop and threw the coat upon the bench and did not go back to the shop until the morning of the second day afterwards, when Mr. Humphrey came in and asked if any of the men had taken a coat by mistake; that he replied to Humphrey, "Night before last I threw a coat on that bench; look at that;" and told Humphrey, "If that is the coat he had better put a tag on it and send it back, but that my coat was gone," which he described, and Humphrey said it was in the baggage-room, and he went there and got it. Two or three days after that he was discharged. The defendant showed that when the passenger reported the loss of his coat it instituted an investigation, and the assistant superintendent was informed by defendant's special agent that the coat was taken while the passenger was out to supper, and that an old coat was left in its place; that he sent one of his men to investigate, and the gentleman's coat was found at the residence of Mr. Bacon, at West Niles; that the statement of the special agent was to the effect that there was such a difference between the two coats that Bacon must have known that he had taken a coat not belonging to himself. In the month of March following the name of plaintiff was entered on the discharge list, which comprised the names of 30 in all, as follows:
MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.
This list was sent between the first and fifth of April to the defendant's 29 heads of departments above mentioned, in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois, one of which was sent to and received by G.W.D. Doliver, assistant roadmaster at Niles. This list was in his custody, and the only person who had access to his books was his clerk, Elan Lombard. No one ever applied to him to see the list, and he never showed it to any one. Plaintiff endeavored to ascertain the reason of his having been discharged. He inquired of Mr. Palmer, a foreman in the employ of defendant, and asked him if it was on account of the coat, and he did not say whether it was or not. In April, 1882, plaintiff had a conversation with Lombard in Mr. Doliver's office about the matter, and he showed plaintiff the discharge list for the month of March, 1882; and plaintiff then brought this action.
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice that it would insist in its defense and give evidence tending to show that the said several alleged libelous publications in the declaration mentioned are true. On the trial the plaintiff called Mr. Doliver as a witness, who, at plaintiff's request, produced the discharge list. Having shown...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallulis v. Dymowski
...695 P.2d 1279 (1985); Bander v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 313 Mass. 337, 47 N.E.2d 595, 602 (1943) (same); Bacon v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 55 Mich. 224, 21 N.W. 324, 326 (1884) (same); Frankson v. Design Space Intern., 394 N.W.2d 140, 143-44 (Minn.1986) (same); Kennedy v. James Butler, In......
-
Petersen Fin., LLC v. Twin Creeks, LLC., Docket Nos. 329019
...it reaches its destination and is read by such agent, it is sufficient publication to support the action." Bacon v. Michigan C.R. Co. (1884), 55 Mich. 224, 228 (54 Am.Rep. 372 ).But neither Ball, nor the case it relies on, Bacon, is on point. Ball involved a situation in which the defendant......
-
Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Long
...W. & B. R. Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202, 16 L. Ed. 73; Johnson v. Dispatch Co., 65 Mo. 539, 27 Am. Rep. 293; Bacon v. Michigan C. R. Co., 55 Mich. 224, 21 N. W. 324, 54 Am. Rep. 372; Maynard v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 34 Cal. 48, 91 Am. Dec. 672; Fogg v. Boston & L. R. Corp., 148 Mass. 513,......
-
Poledna v. Bendix Aviation Corp.
...which they could have made this finding. Further, the charge of theft, if false, is certainly actionable per se. Bacon v. Michigan Central R. Co., 55 Mich. 224, 21 N.W. 324; Schattler v. Daily Herald Co., 162 Mich. 115, 127 N.W. 42. The trial judge, however, ruled out general damages in his......