Hopkins v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 06 January 1942
• Docket Number: No. 25922.,25922.
• Citation: 157 S.W.2d 236
• Parties: HOPKINS v. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

157 S.W.2d 236

HOPKINS v. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS.

No. 25922.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 6, 1942.

Rehearing Denied January 20, 1942.

Writ of Certiorari Granted March 10, 1942.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Francis C. Williams, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Action by Jasper R. Hopkins against Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, a corporation, for actual and punitive damages for failure to issue a service letter. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Carleton S. Hadley, Walter N. Davis, and Arnot L. Sheppard, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

Hay & Flanagan, of St. Louis, for respondent.

HUGHES, Presiding Judge.

This is an action by respondent to recover from appellant both actual and punitive damages for an alleged violation of Section 4588, R.S.1929, now Section 5064, R.S.1939, for the refusal of appellant to issue to respondent upon his discharge from employment, a service letter setting forth the nature and character of service rendered by respondent to appellant corporation and the duration thereof, and truly stating for what cause, if any, such employee has quit such service.

The facts at issue are substantially the same as in the case of William M. Chrisman, Jr., v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, a Corporation, which has been determined by this court and an opinion handed down this day, and which will be found reported in 157 S.W.2d 230, with this difference, that in the Chrisman case defendant offered no evidence, while in this case the facts as adduced by plaintiff were controverted by evidence offered by the defendant. However, inasmuch as the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses is not before us, there is no occasion for a further statement of facts than we made in the Chrisman case.

The same assignments of error and the same points and authorities are presented in this case as in the Chrisman case, and our rulings are the same.

However, in this case the verdict and judgment in respondent's favor was for $25 actual damages and $5,000 punitive damages. The trial court required a remittitur of $1,500 of the punitive damage award, which respondent made, and judgment was rendered for a total of $3,525. We see no reason why the punitive damages should be greater or different in this case than those assessed in the Chrisman case. The facts and circumstances authorizing the assessment of...