Nunnamaker v. Smith's

• Decision Date: 29 December 1913
• Citation: 96 S.C. 294,80 S.E. 465
• Parties: NUNNAMAKER v. SMITH'S et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

80 S.E. 465

96 S.C. 294

NUNNAMAKER

v.SMITH'S et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 29, 1913.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1914.

1. Corporations (§ 493*) — Liability for Slander.

A corporation may be liable for slander. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1904; Dec. Dig. § 493.* J

2. Libel and Slander (§ 74*)—Persons Liable—Joint Liability.

There is no joint liability for slander, though the persons speak the same words; each being liable individually.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 175-178; Dec. Dig. § 74.* J

3. Corporations (§ 506*)—Liability—Joint Liability with Agent.

A wrongful act done by a corporation through an agent is the joint action of the corporation and the agent, and both may be sued in one action, and hence the president of a corporation and the corporation could be sued in 6iander for damages caused by slanderous utterances by the president within the scope of his authority.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1958-1970; Dec. Dig. § 506.*]

4. Libel and Slander (§ 97*)—Allegations of Complaint—Sufficiency.

The complaint alleged that defendant's president charged plaintiff, defendant's cashier, with being $9.85 "short" in her cash, and told her she would have to make the money good, and took what money she had on her person, and placed another employe' to watch her, and detained her for some time, and that defendant's language and conduct were meant to charge, and did charge, that plaintiff stole defendant's money and was so understood by the bystanders. Held, that the allegations made it a jury question whether the alleged slander charged a crime.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 234-236; Dec. Dig. § 97.*]

5. Libel and Slander (§ 87*)—Allegations of Complaint.

Allegations of the complaint that the alleged slanderous charge was "false, malicious, and slanderous" sufficiently alleged that the slanderous statement was false.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. § 211; Dec. Dig. § 87.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; F. B. Gary, Judge.

Action by Mary Nunnamaker, by Ida L. Nunnamaker, her guardian ad litem, against Smith's and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Melton & Belser and E. L. Craig, all of Columbia, for appellants.

D. W. Robinson, of Columbia, for appellee.

FRASER, J. This is an action for slander. The important allegations in the complaint are: That the defendant Smith's is a corporation, and the defendant H. K. Smith is the president and treasurer of the corporation. That on or about the 7th day of September, 1912, the plaintiff, Mary Nunnamaker, was, and had been for some time previous thereto, employed by the defendant Smith's in the capacity of cashier in one of the places of business of said corporation, in the city of Columbia, "and in the evening of said date the defendants, through the defendant H. K. Smith, said to and of the plaintiff, Mary Nunnamaker, in the office and place of business of said corporation, a public place, in the presence and hearing of divers persons who were in there, that the plaintiff, Mary Nunnamaker, was $9.S5 short in her sales—receipts cash—and asked her what she had done with this money, and told her she would have to make the money good. He asked her how much money she had on her person, and she told him and showed him, and he took the money which she had, to wit, $4.75, and told her she must bring the rest of the shortage on Monday, told her she would have to make the money (shortage) good, placing another employe to watch her. Said he could not put up with that shortage, and detained said plaintiff, Mary Nunnamaker, for a considerable length of time, endeavoring to make her produce the money." "(5) That the said defendant, by said language and conduct, meant to charge and did charge the plaintiff, Mary Nunnamaker, with the crime of stealing the money of Smith's, the said corporation, and the said language and conduct was so understood by those who were present and heard it, and the said charge was false, malicious, and slanderous. (6) That the defendants, then and there, by means of said language and conduct, intimidated plaintiff and restrained and prevented the plaintiff from going to her home until after midnight of Saturday night, and then turned her out of said store without money, and a long distance from her home and without any protection (7) That the said defendants, then and there, by means of said false charge and the conduct of said defendants, and the said intimidation, unlawfully, willfully, and with a high hand, took from the plaintiff, Mary Nunnamaker, $4.75 of her own money and property. (8) That the said defendant, H. K. Smith, committed the aforesaid willful, wanton, and wrongful acts in his own wrong and for the use and benefit of the defendant Smith's, a corporation of which he was president and treasurer and active manager, and the said wrong was committed in the presence of H. C. Smith, another officer of said corporation. And as plaintiff is informed and believes, the said corporation approved and took the benefits of said tortious and wrongful acts so committed by its codefendant."

The defendant demurred on four grounds: (1) That the complaint alleged a joint liability against two persons. (2) That the language is not actionable per se and...