Rogers v. Adams, 37305
| Decision Date | 16 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 37305,37305,2 |
| Citation | 105 S.E.2d 364,98 Ga.App. 155 |
| Parties | G. H. ROGERS v. L. G. ADAMS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where the trial court finds that the petition as against general demurrer fails to state a cause of action and no proper amendment is tendered curing the defect prior to the entering of the order, the trial judge is not obliged to allow time for amendment before dismissing the action.
2. A petition alleging that the defendant wilfully, maliciously and falsely said to named persons that the plaintiff was unqualified for the position which he held in a named corporation, and that as a result of these statements the plaintiff was demoted to another position at a reduction in salary, states a cause of action in slander, it not appearing from the allegations that any question involving a privileged communication is involved.
G. H. Rogers filed an action for slander in the Superior Court of Cobb County against L. G. Adams which, as amended, alleged in substance that the plaintiff was an employee of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation in Department No. 57-61 thereof in the capacity of Material Review Board Investigator between June 15, 1953, and May 14, 1956; that at that time an employment opening for the higher grade of Experimental Inspector in that department existed and plaintiff was promoted to Experimental Inspector with a pay rise from $2.50 per hour to $2.68 per hour; that on June 18, the defendant in the presence of H. K. Gammon, A. F. Holmes and others stated that the plaintiff had not been working in the area in which this vacancy occurred and that the plaintiff was not qualified for the position of Experimental Inspector; that these statements were false, because the plaintiff had been assigned to said area for more than two years immediately preceding these remarks and because he was qualified for the job and had performed its duties in an outstanding manner; that the statements were made falsely, wilfully and maliciously, and as a result thereof he was downgraded to the classification of Material Review Board Investigator; that he would have retained the promotion except for the slanderous statements of the defendant. General demurrers were interposed to the petition and to the petition as amended, which were sustained, and the action dismissed. The exception is to this judgment.
Ward, Brooks, Parker & Daniel, William W. Daniel, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Luther C. Hames, Jr., Marietta, for defendant in error.
1. It is contended that the trial court erred in refusing to permit the plaintiff to amend his petition under the following circumstances: after the petition had been once amended, additional demurrers filed, and argument thereon concluded, the trial court 'stated that he thought the petition was subject to general demurrer and that he would sustain one or more of the grounds of general demurrer of the defendant L. G. Adams; thereupon the attorney for the plaintiff orally requested leave to meet the grounds of the demurrer which the court intended to sustain without ever offering a proffered amendment; that the court refused to grant the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his petition; that the court stated that he had not decided at that time which grounds of demurrer should be sustained.' The court then took the matter under advisement and later issued an order sustaining all grounds of general demurrer and reciting that, the petition having been already amended, the request of plaintiff for leave to amend is denied.
Browning v. Hirsch, 87 Ga.App. 576, 75 S.E.2d 43, 45. Trowbridge v. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc., 93 Ga.App. 11, 90 S.E.2d 592, 593. Where the trial judge properly sustains a general demurrer, it has been specifically held that he is not obliged to permit the plaintiff to amend. Ripley v. Eady, 106 Ga. 422(2), 32 S.E. 343; Lamar, Taylor & Riley Drug Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 127 Ga. 448, 452, 56 S.E. 486; Wells v. John G. Butler's Builders' Supply Co., 128 Ga. 37, 39, 57 S.E. 55. Owens v. Rutherford, 200 Ga. 143, 152, 36 S.E.2d 309, 315. Where a demurrer is filed on both general and special grounds, it is not error to sustain the demurrers and dismiss the petition where, although a request was made for time to amend, the record does not disclose what amendment the plaintiffs proposed to make. Lipscomb v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Irwin
...is slanderous or libelous must be of something that would affect a plaintiff's character generally in his trade. Rogers v. Adams, 98 Ga.App. 155, 105 S.E.2d 364 (1958). Hayes bases his cause of action for defamation on several activities by Irwin: (1) the anonymous mailing in October 1977 t......
-
Farrior v. H.J. Russell & Co.
...manager suffices for a trade since Georgia courts have interpreted "trade" to encompass employment by another. Rogers v. Adams, 98 Ga.App. 155, 105 S.E.2d 364 (1958). The remarks on which Plaintiff relies, however, are insufficient as a matter of law to constitute defamation. "For a defamat......
-
Davita v. Nephrology Associates, P.C.
...profession, or business, "`the charge must be something that affects his character generally in his trade.'" Rogers v. Adams, 98 Ga.App. 155, 158, 105 S.E.2d 364 (1958) (quoting Van Epps v. Jones, 50 Ga. 238, 242 (1873)) (emphasis added). Stated differently, "the alleged defamation must act......
-
Barry v. Baugh
...to indicate that the speaker was alluding to him as a lawyer.' See also Mell v. Edge, 68 Ga.App. 314(5), 22 S.E.2d 738; Rogers v. Adams, 98 Ga.App. 155(2), 105 S.E.2d 364. Nothing in the words spoken or the colloquium indicates that the defendant was alluding to the plaintiff in her capacit......