Comerford v. West End St. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1895 |
| Citation | 164 Mass. 13,41 N.E. 59 |
| Parties | COMERFORD v. WEST END ST. RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J.W. Pickering, for plaintiff.
W.B Sprout, for defendant.
In Fogg v. Railroad Corp., 148 Mass. 513, 20 N.E. 109 it was held that "a corporation is liable in damages for the publication of a libel, as it is for its other torts"; and it was said: "To establish its liability, the publication must be shown to have been made by its authority, or to have been ratified by it, or to have been made by one of its servants or agents in the course of the business in which he was employed." See, also Howland v. Manufacturing Co., 156 Mass. 543, 31 N.E. 656. Of course, if slanderous words are shown to have been uttered by the authority of a corporation, or to have been ratified by it, the corporation is liable; but, if they are uttered by an agent or servant in the course of the business in which he is employed, it is at least questionable whether the corporation is liable. We are aware of no case in which this has been held. For the purposes of this case we assume, without deciding, that the rule is the same in slander as in libel.
We proceed to consider the counts relied upon at the trial. These are the third, fourth, and fifth. The third count sets forth the circumstances under which the alleged slander was uttered, among which are that the plaintiff was a starter in the defendant's employ, part of whose duty it was to hand transfer checks to persons leaving the defendant's cars at Allston, which entitled them to ride in other cars of the defendant to certain points in and beyond Allston, and alleges that the defendant, "falsely and wickedly pretending that the plaintiff had illegally appropriated embezzled, stolen, and converted to his own use a quantity of said checks, and that the same was the ground of his said discharge, publicly, falsely, and maliciously accused the plaintiff of the crime of larceny, by words spoken of the plaintiff in relation to his said discharge, substantially as follows: 'He is discharged from the employ of this company for the misuse of checks.' " The fourth count alleges that, under the circumstances set forth in the third count, "and at the time of discharging him, as therein set forth, the defendant publicly, falsely, and maliciously accused the plaintiff of the crime of embezzlement, by words spoken of the plaintiff in relation to his said discharge, substantially as follows: 'He is discharged from the employ of this company for the misuse of checks.' " The fifth count alleges that under the circumstances set forth in the third count the defendant wantonly and recklessly dismissed and discharged the plaintiff from its employ, and falsely and publicly...
To continue reading
Request your trial