Pennsylvania Iron Works Co. v. Henry Voght Mach. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 October 1906
• Citation: 139 Ky. 497,96 S.W. 551
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA IRON WORKS CO. v. HENRY VOGHT MACH. CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

96 S.W. 551

139 Ky. 497

PENNSYLVANIA IRON WORKS CO. v. HENRY VOGHT MACH. CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 4, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch First Division.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by the Henry Voght Machine Company against the Pennsylvania Iron Works Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bennett H. Young and M. W. Ripy, for appellant.

Thum &amp Clark and Gibson, Mar shall & Gibson, for appellee.

CARROLL C.

The appellant is a Pennsylvania corporation and the appellee a Kentucky corporation, and they are rivals in the manufacture of ice machines. In 1896, the appellant opened an office in Louisville, Ky. and placed it in charge of William Wilson. In 1897, appellant and appellee were competitive bidders for an ice machine desired by the Northern Lake Ice Company of Louisville. Appellee was the successful bidder, and when Wilson learned of this fact he wrote a letter to the Northern Lake Ice Company, the material parts of which are as follows "* * * The reason we withdrew our proposition is because you telephoned us that the tank was let to the Sulzer-Voght Machine Co., and another reason is because we could not figure against a secondhand dealer. We do not recognize that company as ice machine builders, and they know absolutely nothing about the compression system. They never have done any work in connection with the compressed system, and at any time they do they will make a failure. * * * The material they put in the work of this class is so far inferior to ours that we could not figure with them; and you will find this when the tank is erected. * * * Our shops and equipments are the largest in existence in our line, and we employ nothing but union labor, whereby the other parties run a scab establishment and have not a mechanic in their whole establishment, including the head of the concern. We will not be slow to make this known to the different unions in this and other cities. * * * The above might seem strong, but it is our sentiment. We know the machine will not make its capacity with a tank built by parties who absolutely know nothing of it and will eventually give us a black eye as the other parties are interested in running down the compression system. They cannot make capacity with their own machines and could not try to do it with another make, and the whole system will not be put in right. If it is not too late, you had better reconsider the matter and let it to parties who know how to do it." This letter was written on a letter head of the Pennsylvania Iron Works Company, from Southern Office, 44 Bull Block, Louisville, Ky. and was signed "Pennsylvania Iron Works Co., Wm. Wilson, Manager Southern Office." After this time, the Sulzer-Voght Machine Company changed its corporate name to the Henry Voght Machine Company, but before changing its name the Sulzer-Voght Machine Company brought this action against appellant, alleging that appellant by the manager of its southern office at Louisville, wrote and delivered to the Northern Lake Ice Company the letter mentioned, the purpose of which was to induce the ice company to decline to award the contract to appellee, and that the letter was written falsely, wickedly, and with malicious intent to deprive the appellee of said contract, and to injure it in its reputation and business, and asked damages for the libelous matter in the sum of $20,000. The appellant, in its answer, after traversing generally the allegation of the petition, denied that Wilson had any authority from, or on behalf of it, to write the letter, and that if Wilson did write such letter, it was entirely unauthorized. To this answer a reply was filed, in which it is averred that Wilson, at the time he wrote the letter, and for a long time prior thereto, with the knowledge and approval of appellant, held himself out as the manager of the southern office, and as such manager, with the knowledge and consent of the appellant, was conducting and carrying on business for it; and further, that appellant after learning said letter had been written by Wilson acting as its agent, failed and refused to disavow or retract the same, but adopted and confirmed the act of Wilson in writing and delivering said letter, knowing the statements therein to be false and malicious. This completed the pleadings in the case except an entry of record controverting the affirmative matter contained in the reply. On a trial, appellee recovered judgment for $5,000, to reverse which this appeal is prosecuted; and it is urged (1) that the principal is not liable in damages for the unauthorized wrongful act of its agent; (2) that there was no evidence upon which to submit to the jury the ratification of it; (3) that there was no evidence to authorize a finding of punitive damages; and (4) that the petition does not state a cause of action.

It appears from the evidence that Wilson had been an employé of appellee, and in March, 1896, he solicited employment from appellant, and appellant wrote to appellee requesting information concerning Wilson. Soon after this date, Wilson became the agent of appellant. Appellant furnished the printed letter heads used by Wilson in his correspondence but Wilson had put on the letter heads the words "From Southern Office, 44 Bull Block, Louisville, Ky." These letter heads Wilson used in his correspondence with appellant, and it knew that he was in the habit of signing its name by him as manager of its southern office, that he was holding himself out as manager of its southern office, and this state of affairs continued until the latter part of December, 1899, when Wilson removed from Louisville. It also appears that appellant...