McClure v. McClintock

• Decision Date: 29 October 1912
• Parties: McCLURE v. McCLINTOCK et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

150 S.W. 332

150 Ky. 265

McCLURE v. McCLINTOCK et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 29, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bourbon County.

Action by James McClure against James D. McClintock and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Talbott & Whitley and E. M. Dickson, all of Paris, for appellant.

E. P Humphrey, of Louisville, Field McLeod, of Versailles, and Denis Dundon, of Paris, for appellees.

NUNN J.

Appellee James D. McClintock and appellant, James McClure, resided in Paris, Bourbon county, Ky. for many years next prior to the alleged cause of this litigation. McClintock conducted a fire insurance business in that city and also represented, as agent, his coappellee the American Bonding Company. McClure was cashier of the First National Bank of that city and also trustee of Sarah Lewis Whitehead and guardian of Frankie Thompson. He executed bond for the faithful performance of his duties, etc., in all three of these positions, and the American Bonding Company signed them as surety. On December 5, 1908, the bonding company took steps to be released on each of these bonds and was released shortly thereafter. This act of the bonding company caused considerable trouble and annoyance, and, the bank directors not knowing the cause for the act of the bonding company, or whether it would be safe to continue McClure as its cashier, they, and also appellant wrote the company and asked for its reasons for declining to remain surety for McClure. The bonding company declined to give its reasons, but stated that it did not desire to remain upon McClure's bond and secured its release in accordance to its rights reserved in the contract at the time the bonds were executed.

Appellant brought this action against James D. McClintock, Thomas W Satter-white, Tracy Underhill, who were partners representing the American Bonding Company, and the American Bonding Company of Baltimore, Md. He alleged in his petition, among other things, the following: "That said defendant James D. McClintock, moved by ill will and malice towards plaintiff, and said Thomas P. Satterwhite, Tracy Underhill and the American Bonding Company of Baltimore, did subsequent to July 1, 1908, maliciously, wrongfully, and unlawfully conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together and among themselves to injure plaintiff in his occupation, employment, standing, and business, and especially in his trust and fiduciary relations herein above set out, and to ruin, oppress, impoverish, annoy, humiliate, and harass plaintiff, and to drive him out of the business in which he was engaged, and to deprive or to cause him to be deprived of his position as cashier, and of his position as trustee and of guardian as aforesaid, by canceling or causing to be canceled without just cause or excuse the said cashier bond, and by withholding from the plaintiff and from the directors of said bank, and the patrons thereof and the persons interested therein, the alleged cause for the cancellation of said bond; and by withdrawing from liability on said fiduciary bonds, and withholding from the persons interested in said estates the alleged cause thereof." He also alleged that James McClintock had been for many years, and was at that time, engaged in the fire insurance business in the city of Paris; that he had been for some time and was at that time the local agent for his co-appellee the American Bonding Company; that, shortly before the acts complained of, he (appellant) and Roy Clendenin, a brother-in-law of McClintock, entered into a partnership and conducted a fire insurance business in Paris; that his entering into this business caused McClintock, who was moved by ill will and malice towards him, and who desired to injure him, to make the statements complained of and to make false statements to his coappellee the American Bonding Company, through Thomas Satterwhite and Underhill, its state agents, which resulted in the bonding company asking for and obtaining a release from the bonds when it had already been paid in full for signing the bonds.

It seems from the evidence that the bonding company sought to be released from the bond on account of information it had received from McClintock through its state agents Satterwhite and Underhill. It had a right, under the contract, to be released with or without cause. Appellant endeavored to show that McClintock stated, in substance, in the letter he wrote to the bonding company or to its state agents, that McClure was traveling a good deal and neglecting his business; that he was spending money too fast; and that he was likely to become insane. McClintock denied making such statements, and claimed that he only said that McClure's father became insane and was sent to the asylum in Lexington. He stated that he wrote no falsehood whatever, and that it was not his purpose to have the bonding company obtain a release from the bonds, but to have them to refuse to renew the bonds when they ran out. The testimony showed that McClintock was embittered towards McClure. McClintock at one time had an office in the bank, and the United States inspector complained of his holding his office there, and he was caused to move, and he claims that McClure caused the action of the inspector in this matter, and it appears that he was further embittered because McClure set up in the fire insurance business in opposition to him. It matters not, however, how angry he was with appellant, if he told the truth in the letter to the bonding company, he is not liable; but, if he told falsehoods to accomplish his purpose, he is liable. If McClintock made false statements in order to accomplish a result, and the result did actually follow by reason thereof, he...