Minarik v. Nagy

• Citation: 193 N.E.2d 280,26 O.O.2d 359,8 Ohio App.2d 194
• Parties: , 93 Ohio Law Abs. 166, 26 O.O.2d 359 George MINARIK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John S. NAGY et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Decision Date: 24 October 1963
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

Page 194

8 Ohio App.2d 194

193 N.E.2d 280, 93 Ohio Law Abs. 166, 26 O.O.2d 359

George MINARIK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John S. NAGY et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

Oct. 24, 1963.

Gurney & Miller, Ralph A. Miller, Cleveland, for plaintiff-appellee.

Bronis J. Klementowicz, Director of Law, Richard B. Mills, M. Eugene Farley, Asst. Directors of Law, for defendants-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County.

George Minarik filed an action in said court claiming that John S. Nagy, Commissioner of the Division of Recreation of the City of Cleveland, Robert Keefe, Superintendent of Maintenance of the Division of Recreation of the City of Cleveland, Lawrence J. Young, Secretary of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Cleveland, Roger Hornyak and Harry Johnson 'maliciously conspired among themselves to maliciously and illegally manipulate the civil service list and falsify the payroll classification to deprive this plaintiff of his legal position as painter No. 4 of the Division of Recreation of the City of Cleveland, Ohio.' After a lengthy trial the jury returned a verdict against all defendants, except Harry Johnson, in the amount of $7000.00 compensatory damages and $20,000.00 as punitive damages. Plaintiff accepted a remittitur ordered by the trial court and judgment was entered in the sums of $2500.00 compensatory damages and $4000.00 punitive damages. The defendants appeal from that judgment.

We have read the extensive bill of exceptions carefully and have studied the numerous exhibits attached thereto and determine and, therefore, hold that the record discloses no evidence of a substantial and probative nature that Roger Hornyak and Lawrence J. Young entered into any conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff appellee, George Minarik, of his legal position as painter No. 4 of the Division of Recreation.

With respect to defendants, John S. Nagy and Robert Keefe, however, we determine and, therefore, hold that from the evidence reasonable minds might reach different conclusions upon the question of a conspiracy existing between said defendants to deprive plaintiff of his legal position as painter No. 4 of the Division of Recreation and that, as a consequence, such question of fact was for the jury.

It is stated in Cooley on Torts, Fourth Edition, page 234:

'The general rule is, that a conspiracy cannot be made the subject of a civil action unless something is done which without the conspiracy would give a right of action. The damage is the gist of the action in the conspiracy; and though the conspiracy may be said to be of itself a thing amiss, it must nevertheless until some thing has been accomplished in pursuance of it, be looked upon as a mere unfulfilled intention of several to do mischief. * * * When the mischief is accomplished, the conspiracy becomes important, as it affects the means and measure of redress; for the party wronged may look beyond the actual participants in committing the injury and join with them as defendants all who conspired to accomplish it. The significance of the conspiracy consists, therefore, in this: That it gives the person injured a remedy against parties not otherwise connected with the wrong. It is also significant as constituting matter of aggravation and as such tending to increase the plaintiff's recovery.' (Emphasis added)

And in 10 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 57, Conspiracy, Section 2, it is said * * * conspiracy * * * viewed as a tort, is a malicious combination of two or more persons to injure another, in person or property, in a way not competent for one alone, resulting in actual damage to him.' (Emphasis added)

And on page 60 of the above citation under Section 3 entitled 'Generally; Necessity of Damage' it is stated:

'Conspiracy, in and of itself, furnishes no cause of civil action. The gist of the civil action for conspiracy is the damage caused by acts committed pursuant to a formed conspiracy, rather than the conspiracy itself; and unless some thing is actually done by one or more of the conspirators which proximately results in damage, no civil action lies against anyone.' (Emphasis added)

See Hoffman v. Johnston, 68 Ohio App. 19, at page 29, 36 N.E.2d 184; 15 C.J.S. Conspiracy § 6, p. 994, at page 1000.

The jury by its verdict decided that a conspiracy, as claimed, existed.

What actual damage directly attributable to the conspiracy is shown to have been suffered by this plaintiff?

We find, in the record before us, the essential facts bearing on the question of the actual damage suffered by the plaintiff and directly attributable to the conspiracy to be very meager.

The record indicates that George...