Black v. State Co

Citation83 S.E. 1088,99 S.C. 432
Decision Date17 October 1914
Docket Number(No. 8072.)
PartiesBLACK. v. STATE CO.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

1. Libel and Slander (5 74*)—Authority op Agent—Liability of Principal.

A reporter assigned to write up proceedings growing out of an election, who slanders another by threatening to write him up if he does not cease influencing voters, is acting within the scope of his authority, though he may have violated his instructions, and the newspaper is liable for his acts.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 175-178; Dec. Dig. § 74.*]

2. Trial (§ 295*)—Instructions—Construction as a Whole.

A charge should be considered in its entirety.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent Dig. §§ 703-717; Dec. Dig. § 295.*]

3. Pleading (§ 11*)— Evidentiary Matters.

It is unnecessary to allege evidentiary matter in order to lay the foundation for proof thereof.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 31; Dec. Dig. § 11.*}

4. Trial (§ 182*)—Instructions—Invading Province of Jury.

A requested charge invading the province of the jury is properly refused.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 407; Dec. Dig. § 182.*]

5. Trial (§ 186*)—Instructions—Commenting on Facts.

A requested charge commenting on the facts is properly refused.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 409, 410; Dec. Dig. § 186.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; T. S. Sease, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by E. O. Black against the State Company. From a judgment for plaintiff reduced by the court, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Lyles & Lyles, of Columbia, for appellant.

Colin S. Monteith, of Columbia, for respondent.

GARY, C. J. This is an action for libel. There was a former appeal herein, from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The order was reversed. The case is reported in 93 S. C. 467, 77 S. E. 51, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 989. On the second trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $20,000, but his honor, the presiding judge, made an order granting a. new trial, unless the plaintiff would remit upon the record $15,000 of the verdict, whereupon the said amount was remitted, and judgment entered for the sum of $5,000, interest and costs, and the defendant appealed upon exceptions which will be reported. The exceptions will be considered in regular order.

First Exception. Seats, unquestionably, was authorized by the defendant to report the proceedings growing out of the election, which included the conduct of the plaintiff, and any others taking part therein. The threats were made by him, while he was making preparations for his report. He was therefore acting within the scope of his employment, and his conduct was binding on his principal, although he may have transcended his authority or violated his instructions. The principal is responsible for the acts of his agent, even when acting within the apparent scope of the agency. Reynolds v. Witte, 13 S. C. 5, 36 Am. Rep. 678; Rucker v. Smoke, 37 S. C. 377, 16 S. E. 40, 34 Am. St. Rep. 758; Hutchison v. Real Estate Co., 65 S. C. 75, 43 S. E. 295; Mitchell v. Leech, 69 S. C. 413, 48 S. E. 290, " 66 L. R. A. 723, 104 Am. St. Rep. 811; Williams v. Tolbert, 76 S. C. 211, 56 S. E. 652; Brown v Tel. Co., 82 S. C. 173, 63 S. E. 744; Robertson v. Tel. Co., 95 S. C. 356, 78 S. E. 977.

Second Exception. What has just been said disposes of this exception.

Third Exception. We shall not undertake to discuss the testimony in detail, as that would not subserve any useful purpose, but deem it only necessary to state that there was testimony tending to prove every material allegation of the complaint.

Fourth Exception. What was said in discussing the first disposes of this exception.

Fifth Exception. What has already been said shows that this exception cannot be sustained.

Sixth Exception. It was determined on the former appeal that the complaint stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and, as there was testimony tending to sustain every material allegation thereof, this exception must be overruled.

Seventh Exception. Paragraph 8 of the complaint is as follows:

"That the said publications above set forth were willful, malicious, and false, and tend to impeach the honesty, integrity, and reputation of the plaintiff, to injure his character and reputation, and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, and to injure his business or occupation, and by reason thereof the said plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars."

In the first place it will be observed that the injury to the plaintiff's business is not the only wrong he is alleged to have suffered. Furthermore, if the allegations of said paragraph are true, to the effect that the publications tended to impeach his honesty and to injure his character, and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy, then this would necessarily tend to injure his business.

Eighth Exception. What has already been said shows that this exception cannot be sustained.

Ninth Exception. When the charge is considered in its entirety, there is no reasonable ground for supposing that the part mentioned in the exception was prejudicial to the rights of the appellant.

Tenth Exception. The proposition that it is necessary to allege evidentiary matter, in order to lay the foundation for proof thereof, is untenable.

Eleventh Exception. The portion of the charge mentioned in the exception must be considered in connection with the other parts of the charge, and, when so considered, it will be found to be free from error.

Twelfth Exception. When that part of the charge is considered in connection with what had already been said and also with what was thereafter charged, it will be seen that it was not prejudicial to the rights of the appellant.

Thirteenth Exception. When the charge is considered in its entirety, it is apparent thatthe instruction contained in said exception was not harmful to the rights of the appellant.

Fourteenth Exception. It would be an injustice to his honor, the presiding judge, to construe so much of the charge as is mentioned in the exception without considering the charge as a whole, and, when so considered, it is free from error.

Fifteenth Exception....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Black v. State Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 17 octobre 1914
  • Beard v. Paul Motor Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 1 juillet 1932
    ...Jones v. Atlantic Coast Lumber Corporation, 92 S. C. 418, 75 S. E. 698; Bell v. Jackson, 93 S. C. 556, 78 S. E. 679; Black v. State Company, 99 S. C. 432, S3 S. E. 1088. Further, the matters as to which amendment of the complaint was sought are peculiarly within the knowledge of the defenda......
  • Catawba Fertilizer Co v. Gibson, 12864.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 22 mars 1930
    ......        A simple illustration of the two-fund doctrine, as I understand it, is this: Jones has a mortgage upon two tracts of land, Black-acre and White-acre, to secure a debt of $5,000; Brown has a mortgage upon Black-acre alone to secure a debt of $3,000; it would be manifestly ...        Appellants state issues raised by exceptions are:         1. Application of the two-fund doctrine.         2. Error in the admission of evidence ......
  • Catawba Fertilizer Co. v. Gibson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 22 mars 1930
    ...... simple illustration of the two-fund doctrine, as I understand. it, is this: Jones has a mortgage upon two tracts of land,. Black-acre and White-acre, to secure a debt of $5,000; Brown. has a mortgage upon Black-acre alone to secure a debt of. $3,000; it would be manifestly ... this instrument." The decree was then entered. . .          Appellants. state issues raised by exceptions are:. . .          1. Application of the two-fund doctrine. . .          2. Error in the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT