International & G. N. R. Co. v. Edmundson

• Decision Date: 26 May 1920
• Docket Number: (No. 135-3038.)
• Citation: 222 S.W. 181
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. v. EDMUNDSON.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 181

222 S.W. 181

INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. v. EDMUNDSON.

(No. 135-3038.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

May 26, 1920.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by O. O. Edmundson against the International & Great Northern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed on appeal (185 S. W. 402), and the defendant brings error. Reversed and rendered.

Wilson, Dabney & King, of Houston, and F. C. Davis and Marshall Eskridge, both of San Antonio, for plaintiff in error.

Ernest Fellbaum, Claude J. Carter, Perry J. Lewis, Champe G. Carter, Randolph L. Carter, and H. C. Carter, all of San Antonio, for defendant in error.

SONFIELD, P. J.

Action for libel by O. O. Edmundson, plaintiff against the International & Great Northern Railway Company, defendant.

The Pacific Express Company operated in the cars and over the railway line of defendant railway company. Plaintiff was employed by the express company as express messenger, and handled the baggage of the railway company. He was required to make report after each trip. As express messenger, he reported to the express company, and, as baggagemaster, he reported the baggage handled on the trip directly to the chief baggagemaster of defendant. While employed and paid by the express company, he performed a joint service for the express and railway companies; the railway company repaying to the express company each month the proportion of his salary representing the value of his services rendered the railway company. The contract between the two companies provided that the employés of the express company must abide by the rules of the railway company, and were not to be retained in the service if they violated such rules, or were otherwise unsatisfactory to the railway company. The railway company was to report to the express company any breach of the rules or any conduct not conducive to good discipline or prejudicial to the service.

H. Martin was the superintendent of the defendant railway company, and as such superintendent he received the following report from the George A. Fields Detective Agency of St. Louis, Mo.:

"Operative's Initials. * * * A. T. P.: At 3:30 p. m. Tuesday, July 26, 1910, I left Valley Junction for Palestine on train No. 6, trip No. 34, arriving at 7:10 a. m. Wednesday, July 26, 1910. The train consisted of one engine, one combination mail and baggage, one baggage car, No. 30, one chair car, and two Pullman cars, leaving Valley Junction No. 1. I met Jim Beard and I asked him what was doing. He said, `How much money have you?' I pulled out a $2 bill. He said `Get over on the other side of this baggage car [No. 30], and when we get to Palestine I will come and let you know when to get out.' The same morning the baggageman saw me, and he come to collect. He said, `Who put you in here?' I said, `I have already paid Jim Beard,' and he went out. At Palestine Jim Beard came and told me to stay on until the train stop at the station, and get off and walk along the side."

Acting upon this report, Martin wrote the following letter, which is the basis of this action:

"International & Great Northern Railroad Company.

"H. Martin, Superintendent.

                                     "Palestine, Texas, Oct. 22, 1910
                

"Mr. T. N. Edgell, Superintendent Pacific Express Co., Dallas, Texas—Dear Sir: Will you please relieve joint express and baggageman W. V. Buttrell from service on this line on account of carrying passenger in baggage car on train 9 July 21st, and relieve O. O. Edmundson (meaning plaintiff) from joint service on account of carrying passenger in baggage car on train No. 6 arriving Palestine July 26th.

                  "Please favor me with your reply
                    "Yours truly,       [Signed] H. Martin."
                

Edgell, upon receipt of the letter, placed a copy thereof in his letter file, and transmitted the original to Beatty, route agent of the express company, upon whom devolved the duty of employing and discharging; and plaintiff was immediately dismissed from the service. Subsequently, at the request of plaintiff, Edgell sent him a copy of Martin's letter.

Plaintiff alleged that the carrying of a passenger in a baggage car was a serious breach of discipline and a serious charge against the messenger's character for honesty and fidelity to duty, being equivalent to saying that he had permitted such passenger to ride there for pay.

Martin died prior to the trial of the cause. His depositions had been taken before his death, and therein he testified that he did not, at the time of the letter to Edgell, or at any time before or after, have any ill will toward plaintiff. He had no knowledge of or acquaintance with plaintiff before the sending of the letter. The communication was made on the report received by him, which he believed to be correct. It was in good faith and with the object and for the purpose of benefiting the railroad's service. He had no ill will against the plaintiff whatever; in fact, did not know him, and to the best of his knowledge had never seen him. The letter was written because the rules of the railroad company prohibited the carrying in baggage or express cars of any one other than authorized employés. There existed between witness, as general superintendent of the railway company, and Mr. Edgell, as superintendent of the express company, a confidential business relation with reference to the employment and services rendered by plaintiff. The arrangement was that the express company employ men as joint express messengers and baggagemasters, pay them the full amount of their salaries, and bill against the railroad company each month for a certain percentage of the salaries paid. The understanding was that these men were subject to the rules and regulations of the railroad company, and were to be satisfactory to the railroad company in the manner of attending to their business and conduct, etc., while in the service on the train, and that any unsatisfactory business matters or conduct, or any other matters that were not satisfactory to good discipline or prejudicial to good service, should be reported to the express company, which had the employing of the men. The communication was intended solely for the information of Edgell as superintendent of the express company, and for no one else, save that it could be shown to plaintiff, if he desired to see it. He did not expect or authorize its contents to be communicated to any other person. The letter was written entirely upon information furnished concerning matters of service on the trains of the railway company. He believed the statements contained therein to be true; and the same was conveyed to the superintendent of the express company without any ill feeling or malice whatever toward plaintiff, simply and truly as a business publication, and without any personal feeling or ill feeling whatever.

Plaintiff testified as follows:

"The reason I was discharged was that they claimed I carried a passenger in the car. Mr. H. Martin, superintendent and general manager of the I. & G. N. made that charge against me. * * * I never carried a passenger in the car in which I was performing my duties. * * * I know H. Martin, superintendent and general manager for the receiver of the I. & G. N. His headquarters were at Palestine, Tex., and I was at that point at times; would be in Palestine every three or four days. I met Mr. Martin there personally. His attitude toward me was cool. I met Mr. Martin a few months before this letter was written. He was always cool and distant toward me. Sometimes he would recognize me, and sometimes he would not. I was discharged on November 1, 1910. I wrote to Mr. Martin twice after I was discharged, and did not receive an answer to either letter. I addressed those letters to Palestine, Tex., in Mr. Martin's official capacity, and put a stamped, self-addressed envelope in one of them. The letters I wrote to Mr. Martin never came back to me. I wrote those about ten days or two weeks after I was discharged. I went to see Mr. Martin twice to get him to investigate the charge. I went up to see him and told him the letter was false, and I would like to get him to investigate and withdraw the charge. He treated me very cool and said he couldn't do anything for me. That was all there was to it. He would not discuss it with me at all. That was the first time I went to see him. I went back again about two weeks after that, I believe it was, and saw him again and begged him to investigate the matter; asked him to investigate it; told him the charge was false that there was nothing to it. He just told me that that was all there was to it; he wouldn't have anything more to do with it. I told him I was innocent, did not know anything about it, did not carry this party, that there was a mistake somewhere, and that I would like for him to investigate the charge. He said he was through with it, didn't have any time to talk to me anything about it, and waived me out. He never at any time gave me an investigation. These were the only two times I went to Mr. Martin. I wrote him twice and received no answer to my letters. Then I went to see him twice and begged him to make an investigation on account of my innocence. He told me he would not touch the matter, would not investigate it, and waived me out. That was the end of my transactions with him. * * * I tried to straighten it up every way I knew how with Mr. Martin, and he would not give me a hearing. I had conversations with him before I went to call on him about this matter. He was then cool toward me. I don't know what kind of a man he was, but that is the way he treated me when I saw him. * * * All Mr. Martin said was that he would not investigate; would not have anything else to do with it. * * * Beatty told me if I would go and see Mr. Martin and straighten it up he would put me back on the run. I tried to do that. I never did anything to incur the displeasure of Mr. Martin. I went to him...