Schaeffer v. King

• Decision Date: 06 July 1967
• Docket Number: No. 24075,24075
• Citation: 155 S.E.2d 815,223 Ga. 468
• Parties: E. H. SCHAEFFER et al. v. John B. KING.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 815

155 S.E.2d 815

223 Ga. 468

E. H. SCHAEFFER et al. v. John B. KING.

No. 24075.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 6, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

On the hearing for summary judgment, the evidence did not demand a finding that defendant Schaeffer did not have the right to discharge the plaintiff, and the determination of this issue is for the jury. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with direction that it strike Division 4 of its opinion.

King & Spalding, Charles H. Kirbo, Robert L. Steed, John C. Staton, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.

Grant, Spears & Duckworth, William H. Duckworth, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.

ALMAND, Presiding Justice.

John B. King in his suit against E. H. Schaeffer and John J. Doran sought in Count 1 of his petition to recover damages because of the tortious procurement of his discharge from his employment as superintendent of the trim shop at the Atlanta Plant of Fisher Body Division of General Motors Corporation. The defendant Schaeffer was manager and defendant Doran was shift plant superintendent of the plant in which King was employed.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to procure and did procure his discharge by higher authority. In addition it was alleged that neither of the defendants had the authority to discharge the plaintiff, but they maliciously procured and induced his employer to breach its contract with him and discharge him. In their answers the defendants denied these allegations and alleged that King's employment could be terminated at will and that defendant Schaeffer as plant manager had the right and authority to discharge King with or without cause.

The defendants moved for a summary judgment and supported the motion by affidavits and depositions of the plaintiff, defendants and various witnesses. The motion was granted.

On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed, holding it was error to grant a summary judgment on Count 1 in favor of the defendants in that it was a jury question as to whether the discharge of King resulted solely from an independent investigation by a superior of the defendant or resulted from this investigation in combination with the defendants' recommendations, which King contended were falsely and maliciously made. (115 Ga.App. 344, 154 S.E.2d 819).

In Division 4 of its opinion the Court of Appeals held: 'The defendants, appellees, also contend that the evidence demanded a summary judgment in their behalf as respects Count 1 of the petition, because it showed that the defendant Schaeffer had the absolute right to discharge the plaintiff, and that having this right he could not be guilty of a tort in the exercise thereof. This contention is without merit, since J. C. Owens, the general factory manager of the Eastern Division of General Motors Corporation and the defendant Schaeffer's immediate superior, testified that Schaeffer's right to discharge the plaintiff was subject to the condition that any exercise of such right of discharge would be subject to review by higher authority and could be reversed by such higher authority. This evidence was sufficient to authorize a jury to find that the defendant Schaeffer's right to discharge the plaintiff was not absolute as contended by the appellees. For these reasons the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment for the defendants as to Count 1 of the petition.'

On...