Ott v. Gandy
| Decision Date | 28 February 1942 |
| Docket Number | 29211. |
| Citation | 19 S.E.2d 180,66 Ga.App. 684 |
| Parties | OTT v. GANDY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The fact that an employment is at will of employer and employee does not make the employment at the will of others, and the malicious and wrongful interference with such employment by another is actionable.
A petition alleging that defendant, who was local manager of office of insurance company by which plaintiff was employed and who had no authority to discharge plaintiff, maliciously and unlawfully persuaded company to breach contract with plaintiff, and that defendant was actuated by an unjust desire, scheme and purpose to injure and damage plaintiff was sufficient to state cause of action for unjustified interference by defendant with contractual relations of plaintiff and company, notwithstanding that contract of employment was terminable at will of company.
A petition alleging that defendant, who was local manager of office of insurance company by which plaintiff was employed and who had no authority to discharge plaintiff, maliciously and unlawfully persuaded company to breach contract with plaintiff, and that defendant was actuated by an unjust desire, scheme and purpose to injure and damage plaintiff was sufficient to state cause of action for unjustified interference by defendant with contractual relations of plaintiff and company, notwithstanding that contract of employment was terminable at will of company.
1. The fact that an employment is at the will of the employer and employee does not make it one at the will of others, and a malicious and wrongful interference with such employment by another is actionable although the employment be at will.
2. The petition set forth a cause of action for an unjustified interference by the defendant with the contractual relations of the plaintiff with his employer, and the court erred in sustaining the defendant's general demurrer.
J D. Ott brought suit against A. J. Gandy, the petition alleging as follows: On December 4, 1937, the plaintiff and the All States Life Insurance Company, a corporation of the State of Alabama, entered into a written contract, by the terms of which the plaintiff, for certain considerations named, became the soliciting agent in Augusta for the said company in procuring applications for insurance and for collecting the premiums on policies issued by the company on such applications procured by the plaintiff. The territory assigned to the plaintiff by the company in which to procure applicants for insurance was a new territory, in which the company had but little, if any, insurance in force therein. The plaintiff's contract with the company was strictly on a commission basis, that is, he was to receive as compensation for his work in procuring applicants and for collecting premiums on policies issued thereon by the company a commission upon the premiums collected by the plaintiff. After entering into the contract with the company the plaintiff gave and devoted all of his time in an earnest effort to build up an insurance debit in the territory assigned to him, and, although he industriously and diligently worked hard and put in long hours daily, his income was very meager for the first year or so. The plaintiff realizing, however, that his business was gradually increasing and that some day he would receive a good income, forged ahead industriously and patiently at his work until finally he had built up a substantial insurance debit in the territory, from which he was receiving a certain weekly income in excess of the sum of $20 per week at the time hereinafter mentioned, and this income was gradually increasing. The insurance company appeared to be highly pleased with the plaintiff's diligent and industrious efforts and sacrifices aforesaid in building up for it the said insurance debit where it had no business before, and so expressed itself and spoke of appointing the plaintiff one of its managers if his business continued to improve, all of which appears in letters addressed to the plaintiff by the company, the last being dated January 29, 1941. The defendant, A. J. Gandy, was, during the month of January, 1941, appointed manager of the company's Augusta office. He, learning of the plaintiff's efforts to build up and increase the company's business and of his desire to become a manager and of the plaintiff's growing popularity with the company, as aforesaid, and actuated by envy, jealousy or other despicable motive, engaged upon a plan and scheme to bring about a breach of the plaintiff's contract with the company, and thereby to take over control of the plaintiff's insurance debit which the plaintiff had spent three years in building up as aforesaid. Actuated by said motives and in furtherance of said scheme to cause and bring about a breach of the said contract with the company, the defendant, after becoming manager of the said office and agency, soon began to slight the plaintiff and show a lack of interest in him and his work, refused to discuss with him any business matters pertaining to the advancement of the company's interests, and on several occasions suggested to the plaintiff that if he did not like the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Servicetrends v. Siemens Medical Systems, Inc.
...held that interference with an employment relationship can be tortious, even if employment is at-will. See, e.g., Ott v. Gandy, 66 Ga.App. 684, 684, 19 S.E.2d 180 (1942). However, a competing employer is not liable for hiring away an at-will employee so long as it does not use "wrongful mea......
-
Troy v. Interfinancial, Inc.
...contract is at will he has a valuable contract right which may not be wilfully interfered with by a third person. See Ott v. Gandy, 66 Ga.App. 684(1) 19 S.E.2d 180; Ga. Power Co. v. Busbin, 242 Ga. 612, 613 (2), 250 S.E.2d 442, supra. An employee, generally, has a property right in his cont......
-
Campbell v. Carroll
...to injure and damage him, maliciously and unlawfully persuades the employer to breach the contract with the employee. Ott v. Gandy, 66 Ga.App. 684, 687, 19 S.E.2d 180. See Bromley v. Bromley, 106 Ga.App. 606, 613, 127 S.E.2d 836; and King v. Schaeffer, 115 Ga.App. 344(1), 154 S.E.2d Contrad......
-
Favors v. Alco Mfg. Co.
...to injure the employee ... a cause of action arises in favor of the employee against such third person....' [Cit.]" Ott v. Gandy, 66 Ga.App. 684, 688, 19 S.E.2d 180. Thus, although plaintiff's employment was terminable at will, nevertheless, she had a valuable contract right with which a th......