Jackson v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co

• Decision Date: 17 January 1911
• Docket Number: (No. 2,625.)
• Citation: 8 Ga.App. 495,69 S.E. 919
• Parties: JACKSON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

69 S.E. 919

8 Ga.App. 495

JACKSON

v.ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

(No. 2, 625.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Jan. 17, 1911.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Corporations (§ 423^*)—Acts of Agent—Liability.

The allegations of the petition failing to show a cause of action under the decisions in the cases of Behre v. National Cash Register Co., 100 Ga. 214, 27 S. E. 986, 62 Am. St. Rep. 320, and Southern Railway Co. v. Chambers. 126 Ga. 408, 55 S. E. 37, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 926, the court properly sustained the general demurrer and dismissed the suit.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1692-1695; Dec. Dig. § 423.*]

Error from City Court of Savannah; Davis Freeman, Judge.

Action by A. T. Jackson against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Jackson sued the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, alleging, in substance, as follows: On or about March 1, 1909. he was employed by the defendant in doing piece work as a car repairer. He was paid a cer tain price for each piece of work done on or about the cars whenever such work be came necessary. His work for the defendant was done in a suitable, proper, and workmanlike manner, and there should have been no complaint or objection as to his work. He was called upon to repair a box car in a manner specifically described in the petition. He did this work, and a duly authorized inspector of the defendant, whose duty it was to inspect, write up, and credit him with the work he had done, duly inspected this work, wrote it up to his credit, and reported it to the higher officials of the defendant, whereupon it became the duty of the company to pay him for the work. After this work had been performed, a foreman of the company required him to go with him to inspect the work, and, when they got there, the master mechanic of the company was present, he being the officer who had general supervision, with power and authority from the company to act in the premises. That the master mechanic asked petitioner what work he had done on the car, and petitioner told him. Thereupon the master mechanic said to him: "You know you did not put this in. This is an old bushing." Petitioner then repeated his statement that he had put the bushing upon the coupler. Subsequently the foreman, acting under directions given him by the master mechanic, informed petitioner that he was discharged, saying: "You did not put in that bushing. You did not do the work. In other words, you are discharged for stealing."

This statement of the foreman was not true, and the foreman in telling him that he was discharged for stealing thereby accused him of the offense of larceny, or of cheating and swindling, which is an ignominious offense and punishable under the laws of Georgia by fine and imprisonment, and imputed to him a crime involving moral turpitude. Petitioner alleges that being thus accused of crime, and thus discharged from the employment of the company, the company inflicted a gross tort upon him in discharging him from employment for a supposed crime which he did not commit, thereby inflicting upon him great mental suffering, humiliation, and mortification, and tending to subject him to public contempt and ridicule among his friends and associates. The language above set out was used to him by the foreman in the presence of some of his friends, companions, and associates, who heard, the statement made by the foreman, and in the minds and opinions of his friends, companions, and associates he has been held up to ridicule, hatred, and contempt. He "therefore sues for the tort which has been done him in his wrongful discharge, for the great mental pain, suffering, and anguish consequent upon the false accusation madeagainst him as a reason therefor, for the humiliation and mortification he has suffered, for the hatred, ridicule, and contempt which lie has been made to undergo on account of the tortious conduct of the said defendant company, by reason of all of which petitioner has been endamaged in the sum of $1,999." A general demurrer and several grounds of a special demurrer to the petition were sustained, and the plaintiff excepted.

Oliver & Oliver, for plaintiff in error.

P. W. Meldrim and Shelby Myrick, for defendant in error.

HILL, C. J. (after stating the facts as above). The general demurrer was based on the ground that the...