Gibson v. Fid. & Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 February 1908
• Citation: 83 N.E. 539,232 Ill. 49
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: GIBSON v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO.

232 Ill. 49

83 N.E. 539

GIBSON

v.FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1907.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1908.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; L. C. Ruth, Judge.

Action by Jacob N. Gibson against the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, affirming a judgment of the circuit court for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

O. W. Dynes, for appellant.

F. H. Trude and J. K. McMahon, for appellee.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

The appellee, Jacob N. Gibson, recovered a judgment for $1,200 in the circuit court of Cook county against the appellant, the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, in an action on the case for wrongfully procuring the discharge of appellee from his employment by the Union Drop Forge Company, and the Appellate Court for the First District affirmed the judgment. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court overruled the motion of the defendant to direct a verdict of not guilty, and refused to give an instruction tendered for that purpose. The overruling of the motion and refusing to give the instruction are complained of.

The plaintiff was a die maker in the employ of the Union Drop Forge Company, at $2.65 a day. He met with an injury to one eye on August 26, 1897, from which he was laid up about 13 weeks. After recovering he returned to his work, and on August 2, 1899, he brought a suit against his employer, the Union Drop Forge Company, for damages on account of the injury. On October 21, 1899, he was discharged by William G. Holbrook, the president and treasurer of the company. At the time he had been working for the company about 10 years; but his employment was at the will of the parties, and he had no contract for future employment. He was without employment until the first part of December, 1899, when he secured work elsewhere. In his suit he claimed $10,000 damages, and the Union Drop Forge Company was insured by the defendant against accidents and injuries of the character for which the suit was brought. By the policy of insurance the defendant had agreed to defend against such claims and would be liable to the amount of $5,000 in case of a recovery. The controverted question of fact was whether the defendant caused the discharge of the plaintiff, and the only evidence tending in any manner to connect the defendant with the discharge, or to prove that it induced the Union Drop Forge Company to discharge the plaintiff, consisted of testimony that John A. Post, the general manager of the defendant in Chicago, and Holbrook, made statements or admissions to that effect. The plaintiff belonged to a labor union, and he went with a committee of that union to see Holbrook. The plaintiff and two members of the committee testified that Holbrook said his company was satisfied with plaintiff's work, and would be willing to put him back at work, but could not do it; that his company had an agreement with the defendant, and if they would get a letter from Post he would re-employ plaintiff. They further testified that they then went to see Post, and Post said that they had caused the discharge and did not intend to let plaintiff work to earn money to fight them with, and that he did not propose to have plaintiff go to work there, or anywhere else, if he could prevent it. There was evidence for defendant, by Holbrook, that when his company was sued he called up Post, the manager of the defendant, and advised with him as to whether it would be necessary or advisable or expedient to keep the plaintiff in their employ under the circumstances; that Post said they could use their own judgment; and that it was on their own judgment and on their own motion that the discharge was made. The...