Epps v. Jones
| Decision Date | 31 July 1873 |
| Citation | 50 Ga. 238 |
| Parties | HOWARD VAN EPPS, plaintiff in error. v. DARWIN G. JONES,defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Slander. Attorney. Damages. Before Judge Hopkins. Fulton Superior Court. April Term, 1873.
Van Epps brought an action for damages against Jones, making the following case:
On December 26th, 1871, defendant, being a Notary Publicfor the county of Fulton, received from the Georgia National *Bank a draft, dated at Macon, Georgia, December 22d, 1871, drawn by Grier, Lake & Company, to the order of themselves, for the sum of $95 22, on plaintiff, at sight, which draft the said drawers indorsed in blank and delivered for collection to one W. P. Goodall, cashier of a banking institution in said city of Macon, and said Goodall indorsed thereon, "Pay E. L. Jones, cashier, or order, " and sent the same to the said E. L Jones, who was the cashier of the said Georgia National Bank, whose business it was to collect such paper. The defendant having received said paper as aforesaid, did then and there, in usual form, protest the same for non-payment, and among other things, did declare in said protest, that he had exhibited the same to the plaintiff, and demanded payment thereof, which was refused. He then sent said protest with the draft to the source from which the latter came. The declaration made by the defendant was false and malicious, for plaintiff never had said draft exhibited to him, nor payment demanded from him, nor was he ever afforded even the opportunity of paying the same. The defendant returned said draft protested, and made said false recital in said protest, notwithstanding he well knew that the plaintiff was legally a practicing lawyer in said city of Atlanta, whose business and duty it was to collect all demands for money placed in his care for such purpose, and promptly to pay over the same.
Grier, Lake & Company, after having received back into their possession said draft and said accompanying protest, forwarded the same to another practicing lawyer for the assertion and vindication of their rights. Plaintiff was, for the first time, informed by said lawyer that Grier, Lake & Company had drawn on him for that amount, which he then and there promptly paid and remitted to them, together with all the costs and expenses to which they had been subjected by the bad faith as aforesaid of said defendant.
Immediately prior to the date of said draft, plaintiff had in his hands the sum of $95 22, as net proceeds of collection for Grier, Lake & Company, and he had informed them of thatfact, and that the money was subject to their order, and thereupon *they drew on him as aforesaid. Upon being informed of said protest, Grier, Eake & Company with-drew their confidence from the plaintiff. If the assertion made by the defendant in said protest was true, the plaintiff was liable, under the laws of this State, to an indictment and conviction for felony, and to be stricken from the roll of attorneys, the consequence of which would deprive him of his liberty, degrade his character, destroy his profession and means of living, besides the special damage to. which he has been subjected, and which he has paid, to-wit: the sum of $100 00. By means of the premises defendant has damaged the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kutcher v. Post Printing Co.
... ... 373), and that they were ... published of and concerning plaintiff, as Mayor. (Stewart ... v. Codrington (Fla.), 45 So. 809; Van Epps v ... Jones, 50 Ga. 238; McCallum v. Lambrie, 145 ... Mass. 234, 13 N.E. 899; Harkness v. News Co., 102 ... Ill.App. 162; Hume v. Kusche, ... ...
-
Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts
...916. 7 Id. at 919. 8 In support of this proposition, Curtis cites — Weatherholt v. Howard, 143 Ga. 41, 84 S.E. 119 (1915); Van Epps v. Jones, 50 Ga. 238 (1873); Mell v. Edge, 68 Ga.App. 314, 22 S.E.2d 738 (1942); Haggard v. Shaw, 100 Ga.App. 813, 112 S.E.2d 286 (1959); and Estes v. Sterchi ......
-
The B & F Sys. Inc. v. Leblanc
...to its customers or refused to pay its vendors, which are statements that would reference B & F's trade or business. See Van Epps v. Jones, 50 Ga. 238, 241 (1873) ("[T]he words must be charged to have been used in reference to one's trade or profession. The speaker must[1] have had the trad......
-
Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Conway, 47018
...114, 173 S.E.2d 237, or make any derogatory and defamatory statement against her in reference to her trade or profession. Van Epps v. Jones, 50 Ga. 238, 241. The question, then, is whether the letter may be libelous per quod, that is to say, whether the extrinsic facts developed by the plea......