Irby v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Meridian
| Decision Date | 30 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 41403,41403 |
| Citation | 239 Miss. 64,121 So.2d 118 |
| Parties | H. G. IRBY, Jr., et ux. v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF MERIDIAN. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
De Quincy Sutton, Meridian, for appellants.
J. V. Gipson, Wilbourn, Wilbourn & Lord, Meridian, for appellee.
This suit was brought in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, by the bank against appellants in a promissory note in the sum of $18,323.93, dated October 5, 1956. After trial, the court directed a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $24,123.78, uncluding interest and attorney's fees. The principal issue pertains to the sufficiency of a counterclaim attempting to charge malicious interference with the business relations of another.
Appellants contend the note was not admitted in evidence, but the record does not support that assertion. At the beginning of plaintiff's case, its lawyer offered the note in evidence as Exhibit 1. The court overruled defendants' objection. A fair interpretation of the context of that part of the trial reflects that the note was admitted into evidence as plaintiff's Exhibit 1. The reporter's transcript shows the note was so marked. Moreover, defendants' counsel at various points in the interrogation of witnesses referred to this note as Exhibit 1. Defendants admitted they signed the instrument, and had paid nothing on it. They did not show a failure of consideration. With the note in evidence, and appellants' admission of its execution, their defense, if any, in this action for judgment on the note necessarily would have to be related to matters raised principally by counterclaim, concerning which subsequent reference will be made.
Appellants argue there was no evidence to support that part of the judgment in the amount of $3,002.39 as an attorney's fee. A member in good standing of the Lauderdale County bar testified in some detail as to the recognized and accepted minimum fee schedule in that county, with reference to a collection fee and a suit fee. This evidence was undisputed, and the circuit judge, who do doubt was equally familiar with accepted professional practice in that county, found that the stated amount represented a reasonable attorney's fee. Hence there is no merit in this contention.
There was a considerable amount of pleading. Defendants filed a counterclaim, which sought damages from the bank because of an alleged wrongful interference with certain business contracts which Irby, a pipeline contractor, had made in Louisiana. It was charged that the bank had advised a Shreveport bank that Irby was in poor financial condition. As a result that bank required Irby to pay it a loan made to Irby, and he was thereby deprived of his working capital and had to abandon his Louisiana construction contracts. The counterclaim alleged other collateral damages resulting from this communication by the cross-defendant with the Louisiana bank, and sought substantial damages. The cross-defendant demurred to the counterclaim, the demurrer was sustained and the counterclaim dismissed. There was no error in this action, for two reasons.
Malicious interference with business relations of another is an actionable tort. 30 Am.Jur., Interference, Secs. 43-53. 30 Am.Jur., Ibid., Sec. 55 concisely outlines the essentials which one asking such recovery must allege and prove: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cromwell v. Williams
...malice); and [(4)] that actual damage and loss resulted." Cenac , 609 So. 2d at 1268-69 ; see also Irby v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Meridian , 239 Miss. 64, 67, 121 So. 2d 118, 119 (1960). Further, the Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that the element of proximate cause is an "additional ......
-
Lofton v. City of West Point
...Morrison, 798 So. 2d at 575 (¶ 28). This finding is based on the earliest incarnation of the tort found in Irby v. Citizens National Bank of Meridian, 121 So. 2d 118, 119 (1960). As such, the court found that "the bad faith exception to a privilege defense was nothing more than an allowance......
-
Smith v. St. Regis Corp., 3:85-cv-140WS.
...cause on the part of the defendant. Galloway v. Travelers Insurance Company, 515 So.2d 678 (Miss.1987); Irby v. Citizens National Bank, 239 Miss. 64, 67, 121 So.2d 118, 119 (1960). To establish interference with a prospective business advantage, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's a......
-
Mid-Continent Telephone Corp. v. Home Telephone Co.
...Co. v. Ennis, 140 Miss. 502, 106 So. 97 (1925); 3 C.J.S. Agency § 215, 3 Am.Jur.2d, Agency, § 393. 51 Irby v. Citizens National Bank of Meridian, 239 Miss. 64, 121 So.2d 118 (1960); Bailey v. Richards, 236 Miss. 523, 111 So.2d 402 (1959); Martin v. Texaco, Inc., 304 F.Supp. 498 (S.D.Miss. 1......