Morgan v. Loyacomo

Decision Date14 April 1941
Docket Number34520.
Citation190 Miss. 656,1 So.2d 510
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesMORGAN et al. v. LOYACOMO.

Cowles Horton, of Grenada, for appellants.

S C. Mims, Jr., and W. B. Nicols, both of Grenada, and W. I Stone, of Coffeeville, for appellee.

GRIFFITH Justice.

Appellants are the owners and operators of forty-eight retail stores one of which is in Grenada. Appellee purchased in this store on the day in question an article of ladies' underwear and having paid for it departed from the store. One White was the manager of the store and witnessed the purchase. A trivial circumstance connected with the purchase caused White to suspect, but without any substantial grounds therefor that appellee had taken away two garments but had paid for only one. Without making any inquiry either of the clerk or of appellee before appellee left the store, which if done would have readily revealed that the manager's suspicions were without any ground, White permitted appellee to leave the store, but followed her; and when about a block away and in the presence of several persons, he called to appellee, stated that he was obliged to investigate whether she had taken two articles while paying for only one, forcibly seized the package from under her arm, opened it, examined and exhibited the contents in the presence of the third persons, and found that he was in error, which, as already mentioned, he could easily have ascertained by a proper inquiry conducted in a proper manner before appellee left the store.

It is the first contention that there was no assault and battery, and that the words of White, with his attendant conduct, did not amount to a slander. Appellants are mistaken that White's actions did not constitute an assault and battery. The authorities are agreed that, to constitute an assault and battery, it is not necessary to touch the plaintiff's body or even his clothing; knocking or snatching anything from plaintiff's hand or touching anything connected with his person, when done in a rude or insolent manner, is sufficient. 5 C.J. pp. 619, 620; 6 C.J.S., Assault and Battery, § 9, pp. 801, 802, and cases cited in the notes. See, also, 2 Bishop, New Criminal Law, Section 72.

Appellants next contend that White's actions were not within the rules which would hold appellants to account therefor. The reply to this is by a quotation which we take from Scott-Burr Stores v. Edgar, Miss., 165 So. 623: "The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • City of Mound Bayou v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 18 avril 1990
    ...akin to a common law assault and battery. See Williams v. Clark, 236 Miss. 423, 427, 110 So.2d 365, 367 (1959); Morgan v. Loyacomo, 190 Miss. 656, 663, 1 So.2d 510, 511 (1941); see also State For the Use of Smith v. Smith, 156 Miss. 288, 292, 125 So. 825, 826 (1930). If defendants were priv......
  • Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 28 février 2006
    ..."[t]he intentional snatching of an object from one's hand is clearly an offensive invasion of his person") and Morgan v. Loyacomo, 190 Miss. 656, 1 So.2d 510, 511 (1941) (intentionally seizing a package from under a plaintiff's arm constitutes battery)). A jury could find that placing a per......
  • United States v. Pruitt
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 14 juin 2021
    ...Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts 33 (3d ed. 1964); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 18 (Am. L. Inst. 1965) ; Morgan v. Loyacomo , 190 Miss. 656, 1 So. 2d 510, 511 (1941) ("[K]nocking or snatching anything from plaintiff's hand or touching anything connected with his person, when done in......
  • Gamble v. Dollar General Corp.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 7 août 2003
    ...could not give rise to an award for damages for emotional distress. Means, 680 So.2d at 804. ¶ 22. In Morgan v. Loyacomo, 190 Miss. 656, 1 So.2d 510 (1941) the appellants were the operators of about forty eight retail stores. The appellee purchased an article of underwear, paid for it, and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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