Conwell v. Spur Oil Co. of Western South Carolina, 17901
| Decision Date | 23 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 17901,17901 |
| Citation | 125 S.E.2d 270,240 S.C. 170 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | George W. CONWELL, Respondent, v. SPUR OIL COMPANY OF WESTERN SOUTH CAROLINA, Appellant. |
Grantham & Robinson, Easley, Wyche, Burgess & Wyche, Greenville, for appellant.
Bolt & Bowen, Greenville, for respondent.
George W. Conwell, the respondent herein, brought this action against Spur Oil Company of Western South Carolina, the appellant herein, for damages for alleged libel in the publication of a form letter, the envelope which contained such letter being addressed to Spur Oil Company, Station No. 219, 619 S. Main Street, Greenville, South Carolina, the letter being addressed to the respondent as station manager at the time of the writing and receipt of said letter.
The letter in question, dated September 24, 1959, was from B. C. Knestrick, secretary of the appellant, and was directed to George Conwell, the respondent, as manager of Station No. 219, the subject of the letter being 'Premium Cash Not Entered on Daily Report.' The letter in question was as follows:
'Dear Sir:
'Premium cash on the following issue receipts was not entered on Daily Report:
'DATE ITEM CUSTOMER CASH
8/16/59 1 Farm Truck & Trailer Howell Hunter $1.75
8/31/59 1 Alarm Clock Judy Shaffer 1.49
8/16/59 1 pair Hose H. L. Gilbert .74
9/8/59 1 Steak Knife Set John M. Ballew 1.70
'You have been charged for the total cash ($5.68) listed above and this amount will be deducted from your next pay.'
The respondent asserted by allegation and testimony that there was enclosed with said letter a blue slip headed 'Employee's Accounts Receivable', reading as follows:
'Name George Conwell
'Date 9/24/59
Ref. Ja 9-24
'Item Short cash on issue of:
Charge $5.68
1 Farm Truck & Trailer 8/16/59
1 Alarm Clock 8/31/59 Credit $_____
1 pr. Hose 8/16/59
1 Steak Knife Set 9/8/59 Posted $_____'
The complaint alleges that a copy of the aforesaid letter and blue slip was sent to Clarence White, district manager of the appellant; that the envelope containing the said letter and blue slip sent to Station 219, in Greenville, South Carolina, was opened and read by one James W. Watkins, assistant manager of the station, and was also read by one G. E. Owens, an employee at said station. It was further alleged that the appellant knew, or should have known, that said letter would likely be opened and read by others than the respondent. The complaint further alleges that the appellant intended and it was so understood by Watkins, Owens and the district manager that the respondent had sold merchandise and failed to account for it to the appellant and had committed the criminal offense of breach of trust, although the respondent could not have been guilty of such as he was not in charge of said station at said time.
The answer of the appellant admitted that it was a South Carolina corporation engaged in the retail sale of gasoline, oil and motor vehicle accessories, with offices and agents in Greenville County, South Carolina.
It denied that it had written any letter or memorandum wherein the respondent was charged with the criminal offense of breach of trust or in any way with misappropriation of funds. Further answering, it alleged that the letter of September 24, 1959, was written and mailed to the respondent, as station manager of the appellant, in the regular course of business and was a privileged and qualifiedly privileged communication.
This case was tried before the Honorable Steve C. Griffith, and a jury, at the 1961 term of the Court of Common Pleas for Greenville County and resulted in a verdict in favor of the respondent for actual damages.
The appellant made timely motions for a nonsuit and directed verdict upon the grounds (1) that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the testimony is that the words charged against the appellant are not libelous; (2) that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the testimony is that there was no publication by the appellant of the alleged libelous statement; (3) that any publication of the alleged libelous statement and any damage resulting from such publication was the result of the acts of the respondent, or his authorized agents; (4) that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the testimony is that the letter and statement referred to in the complaint were qualifiedly privileged; and (5) that there was no evidence of malice on the part of the appellant in sending the letter and statement. After an adverse judgment, the appellant moved for judgment non obstante veredicto and, in the alternative, for a new trial upon the same grounds as were included in the motions for a nonsuit and directed verdict. All of the motions were refused and this appeal followed.
It appears from the testimony that the respondent was first employed by the appellant in September, 1957, as assistant manager of its Rutherford Street station in Greenville. After working there for a short period of time, he was transferred to Easley as station manager. Thereafter, he was transferred to Station No. 219, South Main Street, Greenville, where he was manager from December 1, 1958 until May 16, 1959, when he had to leave on account of illness. H. L. Gilbert was assistant manager of this station at the time when the respondent had to leave on account of illness and he took over as temporary manager. The respondent returned to appellant's Station No. 219 on August 31, 1959, and was checked back in as station manager on September 8, 1959, and at the same time James W. Watkins was made assistant manager in place of H. L. Gilbert. The respondent continued to work as station manager until October 2, 1959, when he voluntarily resigned because he felt that he was not responsible for the $5.68 which had been deducted from his pay.
It appears from the testimony that the appellant, in an effort to promote sales, gives what is called premium coupons, one coupon being given for every gallon of gas or quart of oil purchased. These coupons could be used in purchasing merchandise which the appellant kept on display at its gas stations. Each coupon was worth a penny. If a customer did not have enough coupons to purchase a desired article, he could make out the difference by paying cash. Employees were permitted to purchase merchandise for cash without the necessity of using coupons.
Where a premium item is purchased with coupons, or with coupons and cash, the salesman counts the coupons and enters the transaction showing the number of coupons on a form, in triplicate, called 'Premium Issue Receipt'. Each copy of this form has the date, station number, customer's name and address and the corresponding daily report number. The first copy of this triplicate form is kept at the station until an audit is made. The second copy is in the form of an envelope in which is placed the counted coupons and is mailed, along with the daily report, to the home office. The third copy is for the customer. If some cash is used along with the coupons to purchase a premium item, the cash paid is entered in the appropriate space therefor. Each triplicate set of receipts shows one transaction only. In addition to entering the cash paid on the 'Premium Issue Receipt', the total amount of 'cash collected on premium issues' in any one day is also entered on the station manager's daily report. This daily report, with the premium issue receipt, which includes the coupons, is mailed to the home office of the appellant.
The station manager also makes out a weekly report entitled 'Station Time Report'. This report is sent in on Friday of each week. It shows the employee's name, position, days worked, wages, the amount of deductions which include social security, federal income tax, insurance, payment on accounts, and a column of 'over or short'. The deductions are figured in the home office of the appellant and the report is returned to the station manager to be followed in payment of wages. At the foot of this form the manager signs a certificate by which he certifies it to be correct and that he has paid the total shown to the employees indicated for the period stated. Each month a complete audit of the station is made by the district manager with the help of the station manager. This audit shows, among other things, the quantity of each premium item on hand at the station on that day. An audit of Station No. 219 was made for the period August 10, 1959 to September 9, 1959. If a difference appears from an analysis of the audit against the coupons and the cash, the auditor makes a memorandum of the discrepancy and turns such over to the Premium Accounting Department so that this department, in preparing the station payroll may enter the proper deductions on the station time report before it is sent back to the station manager. The audit above referred to revealed that the premium cash on the four items mentioned in the letter of September 24, 1959, was not entered on the daily report.
A manager of a gasoline service station for the appellant is responsible to the company for all transactions involving such. He is responsible for seeing that all transactions are properly reported; that all reports are promptly and accurately made out, and that the cash received in the operation of the station is deposited in the bank and accounted for. His daily report should properly and accurately show the redemption of all premium items by coupons alone or by coupons and cash.
The evidence shows that the service station accounts for this particular station, as well as other stations, were on occasions out of balance. When this situation exists, the appellant uses a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Richland Cnty. Recreation Comm'n
...a corporation are qualifiedly privileged if made in good faith and in the usual course of business." Id. (citing Conwell v. Spur Oil Co., 240 S.C. 170, 125 S.E.2d 270 (1962)). "[F]or a communication to be privileged, the person making it must be careful to go no further than his interests o......
-
Myers v. Dollar Gen. Corp.
...parties only.'" Manley v. Manley, 291 S.C. 325, 331, 353 S.E.2d 312, 315 (Ct. App. 1987) (quoting Conwell v. Spur Oil Co. of W.S.C., 240 S.C. 170, 178, 125 S.E.2d 270, 274-75 (1962)).Fountain, 398 S.C. at 444, 730 S.E.2d at 310. "Where the occasion gives rise to a qualified privilege, there......
-
Fredrich v. Dolgencorp, LLC
...if made in good faith and in the usual course of business. Id. at 141, 542 S.E.2d at 749 (citing Conwell v. Spur Oil Co., 240 S.C. 170, 179, 125 S.E.2d 270, 275 (S.C. 1962)). The protection of a qualified privilege may be lost by the manner of its exercise. Fulton v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R......
-
Murray v. Holnam, Inc.
...employees of a corporation are qualifiedly privileged if made in good faith and in the usual course of business. Conwell v. Spur Oil Co., 240 S.C. 170, 125 S.E.2d 270 (1962). We find the trial judge did not err in initially concluding Smoak was protected by a qualified privilege. Yet, the p......