Hudson v. Slack Furniture Co.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1943
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 42017.
• Citation: 318 Ill.App. 15,47 N.E.2d 502
• Parties: HUDSON v. SLACK FURNITURE CO.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

318 Ill.App. 15

47 N.E.2d 502

HUDSON

v.SLACK FURNITURE CO.

Gen. No. 42017.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

March 2, 1943.

Appeal from City Court, East St. Louis; Ralph Cook, Judge.

Suit by Howard Hudson against the Slack Furniture Company for libel. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for new trial. Whitnel, Browning, Listeman & Walker, of East St. Louis, for appellant.

Virgil Jacoby, of Alton, and MacDonald, Meyer & Meyer, of East St. Louis, for appellee.

CULBERTSON, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the City Court of East St. Louis, in favor of Howard Hudson, appellee (hereinafter called plaintiff), as against the Slack Furniture Company, appellant (hereinafter called defendant), in the sum of $500. The action arose out of a libel suit brought by plaintiff against The Slack Furniture Company on a complaint in which plaintiffalleged, in substance, that he had purchased a stove from defendant on the installment plan; that he was employed by the B. & O. Railroad Company; that the defendant, with full knowledge, maliciously intending to injure plaintiff in his employment, maliciously wrote and published a malicious libel in the form of a wage assignment on which defendant forged plaintiff's signature and which wage assignment was addressed to plaintiff's employer, the Railroad Company; that plaintiff's employer had a rule in force that wage assignments subjected employees to dismissal; that the exhibition of the forged wage assignment to plaintiff's employer and the demand for plaintiff's wages made on plaintiff's employer by defendant “intended to, and did, charge plaintiff as being unfit and as a person of no worth in his business obligations and employment”; and that by means thereof plaintiff was injured in his good name, reputation, credit, and employment, and that his position with the Railroad Company was impaired, and that he fears the loss of his employment as the result thereof. By amendment during trial, plaintiff alleged specifically that he was required to expend certain sums of money in securing the release of the wage assignment, for meals, hotel bills, and automobile expenses. Those were the only items of special damage alleged in the complaint. The defendant, in its answer, denied the averments of the complaint, separately.

The evidence discloses that the plaintiff had worked for the Railroad Company as a freight agent and telegrapher, and was employed chiefly as a telegraph operator. In October of 1939 plaintiff purchased a stove from defendant on a conditional sales contract. He paid three monthly $5 installments on the stove when the door of the stove broke as the result of what plaintiff contends were defective materials. Plaintiff stated that he wrote defendant three times about the defects and refused to make further payments until an adjustment on the defect was made. At the time of making the contract plaintiff signed a number of papers, but was positive he did not sign a wage assignment.

In April of 1940, the credit manager of the defendant Company called the plaintiff by long-distance telephone, demanding $15, and plaintiff told him he would not pay it until the stove was fixed, and the credit manager then told the plaintiff he had a wage assignment in with the General Solicitor of the Railroad, and that he would let the assignment go through. The plaintiff replied that if he did he would sue the defendant Company. Thereafter, the credit manager did turn in a wage assignment (which the evidence indicates was never signed by plaintiff), with plaintiff's signature apparently forged on it. The evidence shows that the Railroad Company notified the plaintiff thereof, and reprimanded him, and that plaintiff left his work to go to the defendant Company in East St. Louis to get the assignment out of his employer's record.

When the plaintiff went to The Slack Furniture Company's store, the credit manager gave him a letter to the Railroad Company (which was requested by plaintiff), in which he stated that the assignment was due to a gross misunderstanding on the part of both plaintiff and the defendant Company, and that plaintiff had purchased a stove, which later proved defective, and of which defendant had no knowledge, and that plaintiff's letters setting forth his complaint were either misfiled or lost in the mail, and that the defendant knew nothing about the fact that such complaint existed, and that the matter was all adjusted, and that it was hoped that the Railroad Company would not hold it against the plaintiff's record. Plaintiff was given a new stove door to replace the old one.

It was shown that plaintiff had made two trips to the defendant's store in East St. Louis, one from Mitchell, Indiana, and one from Bedford, Indiana, in the process of having the matter adjusted.

The Railroad Company had a rule that an employee would be dismissed if his wage assignment was served on the Company. The rule was to the effect that upon the making of a first assignment of wages, an employee is to be warned, and if a second assignment is made, it will be sufficient cause for an employee's dismissal, unless, in either case, there are extenuating circumstances.

After plaintiff had paid the balance on the stove, and after the defective part had been replaced, plaintiff demanded the wage assignment which the credit manager claimed he had signed, but defendant was unable to produce any wage assignment which was signed by plaintiff, and it was shown that the wage assignment which was served on plaintiff's employer was not one which was signed by plaintiff. A number of exhibits were introduced by plaintiff, some of which were communications between officials of the Railroad Company, which were identified solely by the plaintiff and introduced over objection of counsel for defendant. The only evidence of special damage, in accordance with the allegations of the complaint, was furnished by the testimony of plaintiff showing the expenses for himself to come to East St. Louis for the purpose of straightening out the matter, and the loss of one day's work in the taking of his deposition in the case. Plaintiff's wages were not at any time withheld by reason of the service of the wage assignment, and there was no showing in the Record of any specific loss resulting to plaintiff on that account. Aside from the warning issued plainti...