Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co v. Sheftall
Decision Date | 31 October 1903 |
Citation | 45 S.E. 687,118 Ga. 865 |
Parties | CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. SHEFTALL. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
LIBEL—INNUENDO—PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION—PUBLICATION—AMENDMENT OF PLEADING.
1. Words which are clearly not defamatory cannot have their meaning enlarged by innuendo. Words which are libelous per se need no innuendo. Between these extremes lies the case of ambiguous language, where it is for the jury to say whether, in view of all the facts charged, the publication amounted to a libel.
2. The protection afforded privileged communications is lost if the publication was maliciously made.
v 2. See Libel and Slander, vol. 32, Cent. Dig. 149.
3. Each publication gives rise to a separate cause of action, though all may be joined in one suit.
4. But where the petition alleged that the publication was made by delivery of the writing to six designated persons, officers of the defendant, an amendment setting up that the circular was posted on a bulletin board, and thus published to the world, set out a new cause of action, involving a different transaction and different defenses.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Macon; Robt Hodges, Judge.
Action by W. C. Sheftall against the Central of Georgia Railroad Company. Judgment overruling a demurrer, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Plaintiff alleged in his petition that he was a conductor on the Central of Georgia Railway Company; that on November 9, 1902, because of a mistake as to an order, he was discharged; that his application'for reinstatement was pending until January 3, 1903, when it was finally refused; that when dis charged he had in his possession certain mileage exchange tickets and sleeping car and parlor car tickets, all of which were unused, and good over the defendant's line; that he was ready to turn them over, and defendant, knowing that fact, yet failed to call on him therefor; that he was led to believe by the defendant that he would be reinstated; that, maliciously intending to injure him, the company, through its duly authorized high officials, published of and concerning the plaintiff the following circular:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Wales
... ... 504; Butt v ... Carson, 48 P. 182, 5 Okla. 160; Patillo v ... Allen-West Com. Co., 131 F. 680; Whalen v ... Gordon, 95 F. 305; Weston v. Warden, 19 Wend ... 648; Hester v. Mullen, 107 N.C. 724; Hansbrough ... v. Stinnett, 25 Gratt (Va.), 495; Ga. Cent. R. Co ... v. Sheftall, 118 Ga. 865, 45 S.E. 687; Spotswood v ... Dandridge, 4 Hen. & M. 139; Todd v. Louisville, ... etc., R. Co., 68 Fla. 202, 67 So. 41; Jones v ... Johnson, 81 Ga. 293, 6 S.E. 181; Cin. Sec. Nat. Bank ... v. American Bonding Co., 93 Ohio St. 362, 113 N.E. 221; ... La. Dairy v. N. Y., ... ...
-
Hood v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
...last case, the special damage is essential to support the action; in the first three, damage is inferred." 4 Central of Georgia Ry. v. Sheftall, 118 Ga. 865, 45 S.E. 687 (1903). 5 Grove v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 438 F.2d 433 (3rd Cir., 1971), cert den., 404 U.S. 898, 92 S.Ct. 204, 30 L.Ed.......
-
Davis v. Macon Tel. Pub. Co., 35984
...express malice is good against a general demurrer. Shiver v. Valdosta Press, 82 Ga.App. 406, 61 S.E.2d 221; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Sheftall, 118 Ga. 865, 867(2), 45 S.E. 687. However where a special demurrer demands that the facts be set out sufficiently to show express malice, and th......
-
United States v. WIYN Radio, Inc.
...which may be ambiguous, and the real meaning can then be explained by reference to the circumstances. Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Sheftall, 118 Ga. 865, 45 S.E. 687 (1903). In such a case, the meaning of the words becomes a question of fact. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Miller, 398 F.2d ......