Anderson v. Southern Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 24 August 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 16776,16776 |
Citation | 224 S.C. 65,77 S.E.2d 350 |
Parties | ANDERSON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Frank G. Tompkins, Jr., Columbia, Sam R. Watt, Spartanburg, for appellants.
Walker & White, J. R. Flynn, John D. Long, Union, Franklin Park, Jefferson City, Tenn., for respondent.
This action was brought by a discharged railroad passenger conductor, now deceased, against his former employer, his union, the local division of it and B. J. Coleman, who was another conductor and chairman of the division. Pretrial appeal is reported in Edgar v. Southern R. Co., 213 S.C. 445, 49 S.E.2d 841, and further reference to the decision of it will be made infra.
Upon trial, plaintiff was nonsuited as to the union and the local division of it, without opposition by his counsel to their timely motion therefor. Verdict was returned by the jury in favor of plaintiff against the railway companies alone, thus absolving Coleman of laibility; the railway companies have appealed; they have been treated in the action as, and may be deemed for the purpose of the appeal to be, one and the same, and they will be referred to as 'the railway company' or 'the company,' or simply as the defendant.
The complaint alleged a meeting and conspiracy by the railway company through its general manager and division superintendent, the unions through their local chairman, Coleman, and the latter individually, in which it was agreed to deprive plaintiff of his employment which they did, whereby his seniority and retirement rights were destroyed and he was slandered and otherwise injured. It may be said parenthetically that at the time of the trial the plaintiff was receiving substantial monthly payments of disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 228a et seq.
The gravamen of the complaint was contained in the ninth paragraph, which follows:
There was no cause of action for conspiracy left after the unopposed order of involuntary nonsuit in favor of the union and local division and after the verdict of the jury in favor of Coleman, from which there was no appeal; the company could not conspire with itself. Goble v. American Ry. Express Co., 124 S.C. 19, 115 S.E. 900; 11 Am.Jur. 588, Conspiracy, Sec. 59; Annotation, 19 Ann.Cas. 1254. Nor under the evidence was there a cause of action for wrongful discharge, in contravention of the union contract, because plaintiff admitted violations of the applicable company rules relating to the handling and accounting for cash passenger fares, which it is not contended in the brief was insufficient to warrant the lawful discharge of the plaintiff. Furthermore, in the above cited decision in the first appeal the complaint was construed to state a cause of action, quoting, 'for an alleged conspiracy to damage and injure the plaintiff in his reputation and property', whereby the right, if any before, to recovery for wrongful discharge was eliminated. 213 S.C. at page 456, 49 S.E.2d at page 845. That became 'the law of the case.'
However, it is claimed by respondent that the verdict against the company alone is referable to the cause of action for libel and slander which survived the collapse of the alleged causes of action for conspiracy and wrongful discharge. Goble case, supra; Green v. Smith, 149 S.C. 303, 147 S.E. 333; 15 C. J. S., Conspiracy, § 31c, p. 1053. The authority of True v. Southern R. Co., 159 S.C. 454, 157 S.E. 618, is conclusive to the contrary. Seldom is there so identical a precedent as is that case for this. The former distinguishing feature of the alleged conspiracy is gone perforce the order of nonsuit and the verdict in favor of Coleman. The True case was the action of a conductor for damages for libel which arose exactly as did the instant case; nonsuit of plaintiff was affirmed with citation of a wealth of supporting authorities which need here not be repeated.
The trial judge instructed the jury that their verdict should be founded upon the allegations of the complaint. Publication of the alleged libel and slander was alleged to have occurred at the meeting which is referred to in the ninth paragraph of the complaint, quoted above. But it was held to give opportunity to the plaintiff to answer the charges, which was required under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between plaintiff's union and the company. Article 31 and the first paragraph of article 32 of it follow:
'Investigations and Discipline
'(a) Adjustment Matters
The investigation or hearing, also referred to above as the meeting, was held on September 26, 1945, in the private, upstairs office of the division superintendent in the Columbia Union Station building, conducted by the general manager and attended by only five...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hall v. Walters, 16944
...was not questioned. Upon later trial of the action there was a nonsuit as to the union on the facts, not the law. Anderson v. Southern R. Co., 224 S.C. 65, 77 S.E.2d 350. Other recent cases in this court (reported as one) in which it appears that it was unquestioned that a labor union may b......
-
Cooper v. Richland Cnty. Recreation Comm'n
...with itself. See McClain v. Pactiv Corp., 360 S.C. 480, 486, 602 S.E.2d 87, 90 (S.C.Ct.App. 2004) (citing Anderson v. S. Ry. Co., 224 S.C. 65, 69, 77 S.E.2d 350, 351 (1953)). However, this doctrine applies to "a single act by a single corporation acting exclusively through its own directors......
-
Frankson v. Design Space Intern.
...150 Ga.App. 523, 258 S.E.2d 152 (1979); Burney v. Southern Railway Co., 276 Ala. 637, 165 So.2d 726 (1964); Anderson v. Southern Railway Co., 224 S.C. 65, 77 S.E.2d 350 (1953); Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Davidson, 194 Okl. 115, 148 P.2d 468 (1944); Chalkley v. Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co.......
-
Corbin v. Washington Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
...at p. 179, 125 S.E.2d 270. 17 True v. Southern Railway Co. (1931) 159 S.C. 454, 462-463, 157 S.E. 618, 620; Anderson v. Southern Ry. Co. (1953) 224 S.C. 65, 73-74, 77 S.E.2d 350. 18 Cullum v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1955) 228 S.C. 384, 389, 90 S.E.2d 370, 19 Bell v. Bank of Abbeville (1947)......