Cash Drug Store v. Cannon, 2221.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 2221.,2221. |
| Parties | CASH DRUG STORE v. CANNON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Angelina County; S. W. Dean, Judge.
Action by the Cash Drug Store against R. T. Cannon. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Guinn & Guinn, of Rusk, for appellant.
J. J. Collins and Mantooth & Denman, all of Lufkin, for appellee.
This was an action for slander brought by appellant, Cash Drug Store, against appellee, Dr. R. T. Cannon, on allegations that appellee had slandered appellant by uttering the following language to Mrs. Emma Vansaw in the presence of other persons: "Carry these prescriptions to any drug store, except the Cash Drug Store; their drugs are inferior grade, and their druggist is not efficient." Among other defenses, appellee denied uttering the language charged against him and pleaded privilege. The judgment was in favor of appellee on an instructed verdict. The facts are that Mrs. Vansaw's son was very sick with pneumonia. She called Dr. Cannon to her home to treat her sick son. After carefully examining the patient Dr. Cannon wrote a prescription for him. As he was leaving the house some one asked Dr. Cannon where to carry the prescription to be filled, and, for the purpose of this opinion (but only for that purpose), we say the evidence raised the issue that appellee used the language charged against him. Under the evidence no one heard this statement except the mother and brothers and the two grandmothers of the patient. A neighbor, who was in no way related to the patient, was present, but, under all the testimony, this neighbor did not hear the slanderous statement.
Under the undisputed facts, if Dr. Cannon uttered the language charged against him, it was to privileged persons and on a privileged occasion. The inquiry addressed to Dr. Cannon was a proper one, and it was his duty to answer it, but, of course, in doing so, he had no right to exceed the privilege accorded him by law.
Appellant seeks to bring this case within the rule announced by the Commission of Appeals in Perry Bros. Variety Stores v. Layton, 119 Tex. 130, 25 S.W.(2d) 310. But that case has no application to the facts of this case. In that case the slanderous statements were made in a store open to the general public, by the manager of the store, and in the presence and hearing of customers who were there on the implied invitation of the owner of the store, and who had no interest in the subject-matter of the statements. In this case only one person was present at the time the statements were made who was not closely related to the patient, that is, his immediate blood relatives. This third person testified positively that he did not hear the slanderous statement charged against Dr. Cannon, and another distinguishing fact is that this third person was not present on the invitation of Dr. Cannon. Clearly, the facts attending the utterance of the slanderous statement by Dr. Cannon did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc.
...(2) the publication of defamatory material for the protection of the legitimate interests of others, see, e.g., Cash Drug Store v. Cannon, 47 S.W.2d 861 (Tex.Civ., App.1932) (physician speaking to protect interest of patient); Snyder v. Fatherly, 153 Va. 762, 151 S.E. 149 (1930) (agent or e......
-
Kaplan v. Goodfried, 18100
...a matter in which both she and the Cooks had an interest. Consequently, it was within the scope of the privilege. See Cash Drug Store v. Cannon, 47 S.W.2d 861 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont 1932, no writ). Since the jury found that Mrs. Ulrich did not act with malice, the trial court properly rend......
-
Cook v. Sikes, 18573
...judgment or decree when such judgment or decree will be only advisory in character or fruitless. Butler v. Ellis, 203 Ga. 683, 47 S.W.2d 861. It is not necessary for us to pass on any other question presented by the record, since the petition should have been dismissed on general demurrer, ......
-
Duncantell v. Universal Life Ins. Co., 280
...in the absence of malice. Buck v. Savage, supra; Flowers v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 392, no writ hist.; Cash Drug Store v. Cannon, Tex.Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 861, no writ hist.; 36 Tex.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander, Sec. 80, p. 368; 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander, Sec. 173, p. 168; 53 C.J.S.......