Comerford v. International Harvester Co.

• Decision Date: 13 January 1938
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 218
• Citation: 178 So. 894,235 Ala. 376
• Parties: COMERFORD v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

178 So. 894

235 Ala. 376

COMERFORD v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO.

6 Div. 218

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 13, 1938

Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 1938

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C.B. Smith, Judge.

Action for damages by J.L. Comerford against International Harvester Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Horace C. Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Smith Windham, Jackson & Rives, of Birmingham, for appellee.

FOSTER Justice.

This is an action at law. Its nature is probably best described by copying count 1, which is as follows:

"Plaintiff claims of the defendant $2,900.00 as damages for that for about twenty years prior to the 18th day of May, 1936 plaintiff was employed by the defendant under a written contract for his services as long as they were satisfactory, which contract also provided in substance that it could be terminated by the defendant at any time on five days notice to the plaintiff, and during said period of time plaintiff rendered defendant faithful and efficient and satisfactory service.

"Plaintiff further avers that while his contract of employment was in full force and effect, and during the time he was performing his part of said agreement, one I.B. Dawson, the defendant's assistant domestic sales manager, who was plaintiff's superior in the defendant's organization, attempted to alienate the affections of plaintiff's wife.

"Plaintiff further avers that when the said I.B. Dawson was unsuccessful in his attempt to alienate the affections of plaintiff's wife, out of a spirit of revenge, he, the said I.B. Dawson, wrongfully and maliciously caused the defendant to terminate its said contract of employment with the plaintiff on to-wit the 18th day of May, 1936, by wrongfully, falsely, and maliciously reporting to the management of the defendant that plaintiff's services were not satisfactory, or that he was not performing his part of said contract of employment in a satisfactory manner.

"Plaintiff further avers that on to-wit the 22nd day of May, 1936, the defendant was fully advised and informed of the said wrongful conduct of the said I.B. Dawson; that the defendant ratified and approved the aforesaid wrongful and malicious interference with the plaintiff's right under said contract, and failed or refused to remedy the wrong it had done the plaintiff by discharging him, and as a proximate consequence, plaintiff was greatly humiliated and embarrassed, and was caused to suffer great mental anguish and was caused to lose a lucrative and profitable position, and was put to great trouble, expense, annoyance and inconvenience in and about obtaining new employment, and was caused to be without employment for a long period of time, and to lose a large sum of money for salary he would otherwise have received, all to his damage in the sum aforesaid, and plaintiff claims punitive damages."

The court sustained demurrer to it. The same nature of action is set out in count 2, not necessary to copy in full. The demurrer goes to the merits of the question of whether it states a cause of action. Plaintiff declined to plead further, and judgment was rendered for defendant.

At the outset, we distinguish this case from United States F. & G. Co. v. Millonas, 206 Ala. 147, 89 So. 732, 29 A.L.R. 520, in that this suit is not against one for maliciously procuring the discharge of plaintiff by his employer, but is against the employer who discharged plaintiff in the exercise of a right to do so.

It is...