Gould v. Kramer
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | BRALEY |
| Citation | 253 Mass. 433,149 N.E. 142 |
| Parties | GOULD v. KRAMER. |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1925 |
253 Mass. 433
149 N.E. 142
GOULD
v.
KRAMER.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Franklin.
Oct. 15, 1925.
Exceptions from Supreior Court, Franklin County; Winfred H. Whiting, Judge.
Action of tort by Harold I. Gould against Abraham B. Kramer to recover for alleged malicious and false statements made by defendant concerning plaintiff, by reason of which plaintiff lost contract of employment. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
[253 Mass. 435]C. Fairhurst and W. A. Davenport, both of Greenfield, for plaintiff.
P. H. Ball and J. T. Bartlett, both of Greenfield, for defendant.
[253 Mass. 436]BRALEY, J.
The plaintiff, a mechanical engineer of much experience in various employments, was on February 23, 1923, engaged at a yearly salary of $3,900 by the Western Factory Insurance Association of Chicago, Ill., a company composed of 42 insurance companies throughout the United States. Its business was to inspect and take risks of mercantile factory buildings. The
[149 N.E. 143]
plaintiff's duties were to inspect the buildings periodically, and go through the factories, obtain design of buildings, and their location and make plans. His connection with the company terminated April 3, 1923, and the present action is for damages on the ground that the defendant wrongfully procured his loss of employment. The second and third counts of the declaration having been waived, the case was submitted to the jury on the first county, which alleges:
‘That the defendant without justifiable cause maliciously intending, and designing to injure the plaintiff in his business, wrote or caused to be written to the plaintiff's employer certain statements regarding the plaintiff; that said statements were untrue which the defendant well knew, and that by reason thereof the plaintiff lost the benefit of his employment and was otherwise greatly damaged.’
The answer was a general denial, with averments that the statements were true and were published without malice. The action as the judge correctly instructed the jury was not for publishing a libel. The wrong charged is causing a pecuniary loss to the plaintiff without justifiable cause, and with a malicious purpose at the time to inflict it. Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555, 562;May v. Wood, 172 Mass. 11, 14, 51 N. E. 191;McGurk v. Cronenwett, 199 Mass. 459, 461, 462,85 N. E. 576,19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 561
The manager of the company on April 4, 1923, sent the plaintiff a letter containing the following statements:
‘Since the receipt of the first letter from Mr. Kramer I have looked over your application for a position with us and interviewed the heads of the departments. * * * And I am strikingly impressed with the thought, that your education, experience and personality combined had equipped you thoroughly for our work more than has been the case with most people, including the writer, that have ever been connected with the association. * * * To a certain extent your private life and [253 Mass. 437]affairs do not concern us, although we must admit, based on our own experience, that if a man has domestic troubles or those that might be classed as simply sex, his efficiency in the business is bound to be affected. We do not care to pass judgment on anything of this nature that you have experienced in the past or plan for the future, but we positively cannot be annoyed with such correspondence as we are being subjected to and unless you can wholly protect us against such correspondence we would certainly prefer that you sever your connection with us at once.’
The manager also had written the defendant acknowledging the receipt of--
‘your letter of the 15th in reference to Harold Gould. You say he has ‘deserted a wife’ and it would be interesting to know whether he is legally divorced. And further you say, ‘He is inducing your daughter to leave her home and come to live with him.’ Do you mean that he is proposing that they live together outside the law or is he in a position to and is offering legal marriage?'
The letter thus referred to being out of the jurisdiction of the court, secondary proof of its contents was competent. Topping v. Bickford, 4 Allen, 120.
The letter of the manager, which the defendant admitted having received, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morse v. Mutual Federal S. & L. Ass'n of Whitman, Civ. A. No. 79-1966-A.
...9 Mass.App. 506, 402 N.E.2d 1069. The jury awarded $1,100 mental damages to each plaintiff, which are allowable. Gould v. Kramer, 1925, 253 Mass. 433, 439-40, 149 N.E. Chapter 93A — Applicability to Defendant Both plaintiffs seek double, or triple (which I find unwarranted) damages and atto......
-
Commonwealth v. Rubin
...N.E. 176;Commonwealth v. Ramey, 243 Mass. 394, 137 N.E. 657;Commonwealth v. Gettigan, 252 Mass. 450, 458, 148 N.E. 113;Gould v. Kramer, 253 Mass. 433, 438, 149 N.E. 142;Commonwealth v. Kosior, 280 Mass. 418, 422, 182 N.E. 852;Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, 103, 54 S.Ct. 22, 78 L.Ed.......
-
Partridge v. United Elastic Corp.
...Railroad, 168 Mass. 433, 47 N. E. 193;Commonwealth v. Trefethen, 157 Mass. 180, 185, 195, 31 N. E. 961,24 L. R. A. 235;Gould v. Kramer, 253 Mass. 433, 438, 439, 149 N. E. 142; Wigmore, Evidence (2d Ed.) §§ 1725, 1726. There was also evidence, admissible under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 233, § 65, ......
-
Mailhiot v. Liberty Bank and Trust Co.
...v. Connolly, 210 Mass. 487, 495, 97 N.E. 80 (1912). Doucette v. Sallinger, 228 Mass. 444, 449, 117 N.E. 897 (1917). Gould v. Kramer, 253 Mass. 433, 440, 149 N.E. 142 (1925). Restatement (Second) of Torts § 774A(1)(c)(1979). It was error, however, to allow the motion to broaden the verdict o......
-
Morse v. Mutual Federal S. & L. Ass'n of Whitman, Civ. A. No. 79-1966-A.
...9 Mass.App. 506, 402 N.E.2d 1069. The jury awarded $1,100 mental damages to each plaintiff, which are allowable. Gould v. Kramer, 1925, 253 Mass. 433, 439-40, 149 N.E. 142. Chapter 93A — Applicability to Both plaintiffs seek double, or triple (which I find unwarranted) damages and attorney'......
-
Commonwealth v. Rubin
...N.E. 176;Commonwealth v. Ramey, 243 Mass. 394, 137 N.E. 657;Commonwealth v. Gettigan, 252 Mass. 450, 458, 148 N.E. 113;Gould v. Kramer, 253 Mass. 433, 438, 149 N.E. 142;Commonwealth v. Kosior, 280 Mass. 418, 422, 182 N.E. 852;Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, 103, 54 S.Ct. 22, 78 L.Ed.......
-
Partridge v. United Elastic Corp.
...168 Mass. 433, 47 N. E. 193;Commonwealth v. Trefethen, 157 Mass. 180, 185, 195, 31 N. E. 961,24 L. R. A. 235;Gould v. Kramer, 253 Mass. 433, 438, 439, 149 N. E. 142; Wigmore, Evidence (2d Ed.) §§ 1725, 1726. There was also evidence, admissible under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 233, § 65, that a few......
-
Commonwealth v. Rubin
......319 , 323. Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58 , 72. Commonwealth v. Ramey, 243 Mass. 394. . Commonwealth v. Gettigan, 252 Mass. 450, 458. Gould v. Kramer, 253 Mass. 433 , 438. Commonwealth v. Kosior, 280. Mass. 418, 422. Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, 103. Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. ......