Matthews v. US RUBBER COMPANY

Decision Date23 July 1963
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 1034.
Citation219 F. Supp. 831
PartiesW. R. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff, v. U. S. RUBBER COMPANY and John J. Egan, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

Winter & Winter, Columbia, S. C., for plaintiff.

D. W. Robinson, Columbia, S. C., for defendant U. S. Rubber Co.

Thomas H. Pope, Newberry, S. C., for defendant John J. Egan.

WYCHE, District Judge (sitting by designation).

The above entitled action for slander was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County and subsequently removed to this Court. The complaint alleges that the defendant Egan, acting in the scope and course of his employment as agent for the defendant Rubber Company, slandered plaintiff by certain remarks intended to charge him with breach of trust and forgery, made in the Columbia offices of General Motors Acceptance Corporation, in the presence of J. E. Cassell and Carl H. Ross and in hearing distance of various and sundry other persons then in said office.

The defendants, in their respective answers, set up (1) the defense of a general denial, (2) the defense of qualified privilege, and (3) that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Depositions of the plaintiff, the defendant Egan, James E. Cassell and Carl H. Ross have been taken and the plaintiff testified that he did not know of anyone who heard the alleged slanderous statements besides Cassell and Ross and that he did not know of any person other than a General Motors Acceptance Corporation employee who was present in the office during Egan's visit. Ross testified that the only General Motors Acceptance Corporation employees who were closer than he to Cassell and Egan during their conversation were the telephone operator Mrs. Inabinet, the cashier Mr. Kehl, and the assistant cashier Mrs. Stewart. Affidavits of Mrs. Inabinet, Mr. Kehl and Mrs. Stewart were filed with this Court and each of these individuals deposes that he heard none of the alleged conversation and knew nothing about it.

This case is now before me upon motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12, and for summary judgment under Rule 56.

The events leading up to the alleged slander are not in dispute. The late F. B. Davis, Jr., at one time Chairman of the Board of the U. S. Rubber Company, prior to 1950, retired and purchased Brays Island Plantation near Yemassee, South Carolina, where he and his wife lived until his death on December 22, 1962. He was approximately eighty years of age at the time of his death, and his widow, who is about seventy-five years of age, is Executrix of his estate. In September, 1962, while Mr. Davis was hospitalized in Savannah, Georgia, his wife, through friends, requested H. E. Humphreys, Jr., then Chairman of the Board of the U. S. Rubber Company, to lend assistance in ascertaining the Davises' true financial condition. At that time Mr. Davis and Brays Island Plantation, Inc., a closely-held corporation in which Mr. Davis held a 98 per cent. interest, had outstanding liabilities of approximately $800,000. The plaintiff was a director and Vice President of Brays Island Plantation, Inc. but owned no stock in it. Several other corporations in which Mr. Davis directly or indirectly owned a substantial interest had become insolvent during the two years preceding September, 1962. Mrs. Davis herself knew little about Mr. Davis' business ventures and felt that she needed assistance in ascertaining the true condition of her husband's affairs.

At the direction of H. E. Humphreys, Jr. the defendant Egan, a senior accountant of the U. S. Rubber Company, reported to Mrs. Davis in South Carolina, in September, 1962, and visited this State from time to time thereafter to assist the Davises in ascertaining their financial condition. After Mr. Davis' death Mr. Egan returned to South Carolina, to assist Mrs. Davis, the Executrix, in preparing the estate inventory and ascertaining its debts.

On December 31, 1962, the Columbia office of General Motors Acceptance Corporation wrote Evans C. Henry, manager of Brays Island Plantation, Inc., that accounts Nos. 31351K8 and 31352K8 were open for December installments and requested payment. In response to this letter, Mr. Egan called at the Columbia office of General Motors Acceptance Corporation on or about January 10, 1963, to make inquiries about the status of the two accounts referred to in the letter. He carried with him a power of attorney from Mrs. Davis authorizing him to check into her own affairs and into the accounts of Brays Island Plantation, the letter from General Motors Acceptance Corporation and certain title certificates of the motor vehicles covered by the accounts in question. At least one of the certificates of title issued by the South Carolina State Highway Department bore the notation that the vehicle was subject to no liens.

Upon arriving in the General Motors Acceptance Corporation office, Egan was referred to J. E. Cassell, Credit Supervisor, as the man in charge of the Brays Island account.

The complaint alleges that, while holding the conditional sales contracts in question, Egan said of and concerning Matthews with regard to his execution of such paper, "Well, that's the trouble, Mr. Davis has obligations that he didn't even know about," or words to that effect.

The complaint then alleges that this language charged the plaintiff with breach of trust and forgery, crimes involving moral turpitude and with betraying the trust and confidence imposed in him by the late F. B. Davis, Jr. and Brays Island Plantation, Inc., and that the said statements were so understood by persons who heard such statements.

I find the facts specially and state my conclusions of law thereon as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this action.

2. There is no material issue of fact in dispute.

3. The only person who heard the alleged slanderous remarks made by Egan was James E. Cassell, Credit Supervisor of General Motors Acceptance Corporation. Carl H. Ross in his deposition testified unequivocally that he did not hear the conversation between Cassell and Egan. The employees who were in the vicinity of Cassell and Egan during their conversation, to wit, Mrs. Inabinet, Mr. Kehl and Mrs. Stewart, each gave an affidavit, stating that he or she did not hear the conversation or the alleged slanderous remarks. The plaintiff admitted that he did not know of any other persons who heard the remarks.

4. Cassell testified as to his conversation with Mr. Egan as follows: (Egan) "that was the difficulty, there were some obligations not known about. Q. Did he say by whom? Mrs. Davis? A. That is what I got out of it. Q. He said Mrs. Davis didn't know about some of the obligations, and I believe you knew at the time of the visit in 1963 that Mr. Davis had died the preceding December? A. Yes, sir."

5. The remarks made to Cassell as quoted by him, or as alleged in the complaint, are not slanderous.

6. The statements made to Cassell as testified by him or as pleaded in the complaint in connection with the other facts alleged by way of inducement are not actionable.

7. The statements made to Cassell were not understood by him as being made about Matthews, as charging Matthews with the commission of a crime or as raising a strong suspicion in his mind that Matthews had committed a crime. Giving these remarks their normal and ordinary meaning, they could not result in being considered slanderous of the plaintiff in the light of all the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Bakala v. Krupa
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • August 10, 2021
    ...a want of chastity or unfitness in the way of a professional trade. Lesesne v. Willingham, 83 F.Supp. 918 (D.S.C. 1949); Matthews v. U.S. Rubber Co., 219 F.Supp. 831, aff'd 332 F.2d 597 (4th Cir. 1963). If statement is actionable per se, then “the plaintiff is presumed to have suffered gene......
  • Smith v. Phoenix Furniture Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • March 21, 1972
    ...chastity or unfitness in the way of a professional trade. Lesesne v. Willingham, 83 F.Supp. 918 (D.C.S.C. 1949); Matthews v. United States Rubber Co., D.C., 219 F.Supp. 831, aff'd 332 F.2d 597 (4th Cir. 1963). Such words being actionable per se, the plaintiff need not plead or prove any "sp......
  • Matthews v. UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 1, 1964
    ...we are in complete agreement with the District Court's action and the reasons assigned by it. See opinion of the District Court, 219 F.Supp. 831 (E.D.S.C.1963). The judgment Affirmed. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT