83 S.E. 1088 (S.C. 1914), 8972, Black v. State Co.

Docket Nº:8972.
Citation:83 S.E. 1088, 99 S.C. 432
Opinion Judge:GARY, C.J. HYDRICK, J.
Party Name:BLACK v. STATE CO.
Attorney:Lyles & Lyles, of Columbia, for appellant. Colin S. Monteith, of Columbia, for respondent.
Case Date:October 17, 1914
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Page 1088

83 S.E. 1088 (S.C. 1914)

99 S.C. 432




No. 8972.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 17, 1914

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.

Page 1089

Lyles & Lyles, of Columbia, for appellant.

Colin S. Monteith, of Columbia, for respondent.


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 [99 S.C. 467] 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...

To continue reading