Braden v. Baugham

• Decision Date: 20 February 1947
• Docket Number: No. 31474,31474
• Citation: 41 S.E.2d 581
• Parties: BRADEN . v. BAUGHAM et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

41 S.E.2d 581

BRADEN .

v.BAUGHAM et al.

No. 31474

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1.

Feb. 20, 1947.

.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A petition seeking the recovery of damages against a defendant corporation for slanderous words used by an agent superior in authority to another agent working under him, is fatally defective unless it affirmatively appears from the allegations of the petition that the employee using such words was expressly directed or authorized by the corporation to speak the words of which complaint is made. This is true notwithstanding that the em ployee speaking the words to the other employee is at the time engaged in the business of the corporation.

2. Where the defamatory words used do not charge the commission of a crime and are not for any other reason slanderous per se, and no special damage is alleged, no cause of action is set forth.

Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; C. H. Porter, Judge.

Slander action by A. L. Braden against C. R. Baugham and Sears Roebuck & Co. To review a judgment sustaining defendants' demurrers to the petition, the plaintiff brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

A. L. Braden, hereinafter called the plaintiff, brought a petition against C. R. Baugham, hereinafter called the defendant when referred to singularly, and Sears Roebuck & Co., hereinafter called the defendant company when referred to singularly, and when referred to jointly we will call them the defendants. The petition sought the recovery of damages against both defendants. Both defendants filed separate demurrers. The court sustained both demurrers to the petition.

The petition alleges that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company in its mercantile establishment at Rome, Georgia, and that the defendant Baugham was manager for the defendant company; and that the plaintiff was a salesman in the store. It is alleged that while the plaintiff was about his duties waiting on a customer whose name is unknown to the plaintiff, the defendant Baugham approached the plaintiff "and in a very abrupt and loud voice" said to the plaintiff "what was that you put in your pocket." At the time the defendant Baugham pointed to the petitioner's coat pocket. The defendant Baugham meant thereby that the petitioner had taken some article of merchandise belonging to the defendant company with the intention of stealing it. It is further alleged that at the time the defendant issued coupons to its employees for certain sales made. These coupons weregood for articles of merchandise. The coupons were issued in the office of the store and were delivered to the salesmen entitled to them. Just prior to the time the above quoted words were spoken by the defendant Baugham to the plaintiff a lady employee of the company had handed to the plaintiff certain of these coupons which the plaintiff had placed in his pocket. It is further alleged that the only things the plaintiff had in his pocket at the time the quoted words were spoken were a small box of matches and the coupons; that he had taken no article or thing belonging to the defendant company. It is alleged that the effect of the quoted statement and the action on the part of the defendant Baugham was to charge the plaintiff with larceny, which is a criminal offense under the Georgia laws. It is further alleged that thereafter the plaintiff asked the defendant Baugham what he meant by using the quoted words to him. The defendant Baugham thereupon told the plaintiff to come with him to the office. When in the office the plaintiff again asked the defendant Baugham what he meant by the quoted words, whereupon the defendant Baugham stated that if the plaintiff desired to make an issue of the matter and if he did the plaintiff was discharged. The plaintiff again stated that he had taken nothing belonging to the defendant company. The plaintiff returned to work. Approximately three weeks thereafter he was discharged by the defendant without cause. The suit was for general damages in the sum of $5,000.

James Maddox, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.

Robert M. Wood, of Atlanta, and Lanham, Parker & Clary, of Rome, for defendant in error.

GARDNER, Judge.

1. We will inquire first as to whether the petition set out a cause of action against the defendant company. The defendant company is not liable under any construction of the words used. This is true because before the defendant company could be held liable even if the words spoken were slanderous per se. It must affirmatively appear from the allegations of the petition that the defendant Baugham was expressly directed or authorized by the defendant company to speak the words of which complaint is made. There is...