Hardy v. Williamson

• Citation: 12 S.E. 874,86 Ga. 551
• Parties: HARDY v. WILLIAMSON.
• Decision Date: 19 January 1891
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

12 S.E. 874

86 Ga. 551

HARDY v. WILLIAMSON.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 19, 1891

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The libel alleged in the declaration was the publication in a newspaper of the following: "Either by erroneous classification, or classification obtained by the brick company and their subcontractors by collusion with the subordinate engineers of the construction company, or some of them, the work of the Chattahoochee Brick Company has been overestimated to the extent of at least one hundred thousand dollars, and probably one hundred and fifty thousand dollars." The declaration alleges that these words were falsely and maliciously written and published by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff, who, it was alleged, was one of the subordinate engineers of the construction company employed for and in charge of the classification and estimating of the work of the Chattahoochee Brick Company; and that these words were intended by the defendant to charge and accuse the plaintiff with falsely and fraudulently colluding with the brick company and its subcontractors to cheat, defraud, and swindle his employer, the construction company; and the declaration avers extraneous facts to show that they had reference to him, and were so understood and received by those who read them and the public at large. Held, that the court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the declaration on the ground that the facts as stated therein did not make a cause of action sufficient in law to authorize a recovery against the defendant.

( a) Even where the words used may at first sight appear only to apply to the subordinate engineers as a class and not to be specially defamatory of any particular one of them, still, if the plaintiff can satisfy the jury that they referred especially to him, he would be authorized to maintain the action.

( b) It was unnecessary that a specific crime should be charged to enable the plaintiff to maintain his action. Charges made on one in reference to his trade, office, or profession, calculated to injure him therein, are actionable and no special damage is essential to support the action. Besides, the words, if written of and concerning the plaintiff, accused him of an offense amounting at least to moral turpitude.

( c) Nor does it make it any difference that the words were put in the disjunctive, to-wit, "the subordinate engineers of the construction company, or some of them." It may turn out on the trial that the expression "or some of them" was used because the writer did not mean that all were guilty, but that the plaintiff alone or with others was guilty.

Error from superior court, Floyd county; MADDOX, Judge.

Henry Walker, for plaintiff in error.

Dabney & Fouche, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS J.

We think the court below erred in sustaining a demurrer to the declaration on the ground "that the declaration did not present such a statement of facts or causes of action as entitled the petitioner to maintain his suit, and that the facts as stated in the declaration did not make a cause of action sufficient in law to authorize any recovery against the defendant." The plaintiff asserts in his declaration, in substance, that the defendant was president of a construction company which had contracted to build a certain railroad, and that the plaintiff and 10 others were employed as subordinate engineers by the defendant to survey lay out, and superintend the work on the railroad and the several residencies thereof, and to estimate and classify the work as it was done, from time to time, in order that the construction company might settle with and pay off the subcontractors; that the construction company subsequently sublet the building of the railroad to the Chattahoochee Brick Company, and that the latter company constructed the road; that the plaintiff and the other subordinate engineers as officers and employes, were placed in charge of the work and it was their duty to survey, lay out, and superintend the building of the railroad for the construction company, and they were employed and paid by the construction company for this service; that the plaintiff was placed in charge of the "6th residency" on the railroad, which extended a distance of 11 miles, and embraced sections 52 to 62, inclusive; that he made monthly estimates of the quantity of earth and material moved and work done by the brick company as a basis for monthly settlements by the construction company with the brick company; that he and the other engineers mentioned performed their duties skillfully and honestly, and complied fully with their contract in relation thereto, and that thereafter the construction company pretended to dispute the classification estimate made of the work by the plaintiff and the officers and engineers, and denied its indebtedness to the brick company for the unpaid balance due that company, and the brick company thereafter began suit against the construction company to recover the same, but that pending an accounting between the parties before an auditor the construction company admitted its liability, settled it in full, and paid the brick company the balance due it by the construction company; that, when the controversy first began, the defendant falsely and maliciously published the following false...