Scott-Burr Stores Corporation v. Edgar

Decision Date03 January 1938
Docket Number32451
CitationScott-Burr Stores Corporation v. Edgar, 181 Miss. 486, 177 So. 766 (Miss. 1938)
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesSCOTT-BURR STORES CORPORATION et al. v. EDGAR

Division A

APPEAL from the circuit court of Hinds countyHON. J. P. ALEXANDER Judge.

Action by Charles Edgar against Scott-Burr Steres Corporation and another.From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Reversed and remanded.

Watkins & Eager and Powell, Harper & Jiggitts, all of Jackson, for appellant, Scott-Burr Stores Corporation.

The Scott-Burr Stores Corporation is not liable for the alleged acts of its manager.Said acts were not within the scope of his employment nor in furtherance of the manager's business, and the learned trial court erred in refusing to peremptorily instruct the jury to return a verdict for this appellant.

A. L I. Restatement Agency, sec. 73;In re Davis,28 F.2d 883;Houston v. Oppenheim,166 Miss. 619;Natchez, etc. R. Co. v. Boyd,141 Miss. 593;Davis v. Price,133 Miss. 236;Martin Bros. v Murphress,132 Miss. 509;Moore Stave Co. v. Wells,111 Miss. 796;A. L. I. Restatement, Agency, Sec. 229;Lamm v. Charles Stores,159 S.E. 444;Bernheimer v. Becker, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 221;Hand v. Industrial Life, 165 So. 616;A. & P. Co. v. Majure, 167 So. 637.

However, even if the agent would have been acting within the scope of his authority, if the act was done in an attempt to recover the property for the principal, the agent was not acting within the scope of his authority when his assault and libel was for the purpose not of benefiting his employer but for a personal reason, on his own behalf as a citizen.

A. L. I. Restatement, Agency, secs. 235, 245, 247;39 C. J. 1295;Western Union v. Stacy,162 Miss. 286;Pruitt v. Watson,138 S.E. 331;State v. Trumble,41 S.W.2d 801;Cope v. Askins,270 S.W. 454;Strickland v. Kress, 112 S.E. 30.

Rules and regulations of a principal are controlling upon the question of the scope of authority, where the rules and regulations forbid the act itself, or the general class of acts to which the act belongs, or forbid the result sought by the act, as distinguished from the rules axed regulations dealing with the manner or method of the agent of performing an authorized act.

A. L. I. Restatement, Agency, sec. 230;Bourgeois v. Miss. School Supply,170 Miss. 310;6 Labatt, Master & Servant, sec. 2285;Von Scorer v. Megginson,144 Miss. 510;Richberger v. Am. Express Co.,73 Miss. 161;Railroad CO. v. Latham, 72 Miss. 32.

The jury should have been directed to return a verdict in favor of appellant on the second count since if the act was within the scope of his authority then it necessarily follows that he in good faith had reason to believe the words spoken to be true and was under a legal or moral duty to do so.In the absence of actual malice the appellant would not be liable because the occasion was privileged even though the statement may have been incidentally overheard by some third person where the plaintiff's conduct was such as was calculated to and did create in the mind of the manager belief in the truth of the alleged defamatory statement.

Newell, Libel and Slander, page 5 (4 Ed.);Flynn v. Reinke,63 A.L.R. 1113;Ballinger v. Democrat Co.,223 N.W. 375;Grantham v. Wilkes,135 Miss. 777;Bull v. Collins,54: S.W.2d 879;Hall v. Rice,223 N.W. 4;Weinstein v. Rhorer,42 S.W.2d 892;World Oil CO. v. Hicks,46 S.W.2d 394; Odgers, Libel and Slander (5 Ed.), 352;La. Oil Corp. v. Renno,157 So. 705;Railway Co. v. Brooks,69 Miss. 168;Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Boltz,123 Miss. 550;Holiday v. Maryland Cas. Co.,115 Miss. 56;Oakes v. Walker,154 So. 26;Stewart v. Riley,172 S.W. 791;Ice Co. v. Moreland,55 S.W.2d 616;Fahr v. Hayes, 21 Vromm 275;Butler v. Freyman,260 S.W. 523;Montgomery Ward v. Watson,55 F.2d 184;Kroger Grocery v. Yount,66 F.2d 700;N. Y., etc., Steamship Co. v. Garcia,16 F.2d 734;Gust v. Montgomery Ward,80 S.W.2d 286;Parr v. Warren-Lamb,236 N.W. 291;Rosenberg v. Mason,160 S.E. 190;Walgreen Co. v. Cochran,61 F.2d 357;Newell, Libel & Slander(4 Ed.), sec. 296;17 R. C. L. 344.

The court committed reversible error in admitting the evidence over the objection of appellant of alleged defamatory statement made by Swanson subsequent to the matters alleged in plaintiff's declaration, which statements are not set out in plaintiff's declaration and were not made while Swanson was transacting any business for the appellant and were not made to persons having any interest in the subject matter.

I. C. R. R. v. Ely, 83 Miss. 519;Y. & M. V. R. Co. v. Rivers,93 Miss. 557;La. Oil Corp. v. Renno,173 Miss. 609;Great A. & P. Co. v. Majure,167 So. 637;McClellan v. O'Engle,77 So. 270;Thompson v. Boston Pub. Co.,189 N.E. 210;Reusch v. Roanoke Cold Storage,22 S.E. 358;Am. Pub. Co. v. Gamble,90 S.W. 1005;Stuart v. New York Herald,77 N.Y.S. 216;Swindell v. Harper, 41 S.W. 117.

A statement by the defendant of a separate add independent slander against the plaintiff subsequent to the slander sued on is not admissible in an action on the original slander.

Giehl v. Winkler,164 Ill.App. 358;Daughtery v. Blanket State Bank,60 S.W.2d 272;Standard v. Coal Co., 47 S.W.2d 443

The court erred in authorizing the recovery of punitive damages on either count.

Such repetition under circumstances would increase the amount of recovery.

Melcher v. Beeler, 139 A. S. R. 273;Beshirs v. Allen, L.R.A., 1915E 413.

There is insufficient evidence to justify exemplary damages under CountNo. 1.

5 C. J. 705;Y. & M. V. v. Mullins,153 Miss. 774;Bounds v. Watts,159 Miss. 307;Miss. Traction Co. v. Taylor,112 Miss. 60;Y. & M. V. R. Co. v. Mullen,158 Miss. 774;McDonMd v. Moore,159 Miss. 326;Miss. Power Co. v. Byrd,160 Miss. 71;37 C. J. 121;Massee v. Williams,207 F. 222;Jarnigan v. Fleming, 43 Miss. 710.

The verdict was grossly excessive from every standpoint.

Miss. Central v. Smith, 159 So. 562;R. R. Co. v. Frazer,158 Miss. 407;Hinds v. Shoemaker,97 Miss. 669;Y. & M. V. R. Co. v. Hardie,100 Miss. 132;M. & O. R. Co. v. Frazer, 158 Miss. 407.

Powell, Harper & Jiggitts, of Jackson, for appellant, E. W. Swanson.

The instructions granted the plaintiffCharles Edgar which submit the question of malice and/or punitive damages to the jury are erroneous.

Miss. Light & Traction Co. v. Taylor, 112 Miss. 6.0, 72 So. 856;Bounds v. Watts,159 Miss. 307, 131 So. 804;Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Mullen, 158 Miss. 774, 131 So. 101.

To say that a person's remarks two or three months or six months after an event can prove the state of mind of the person at the time of the said event is conjecture of the wildest kind.One may be perfectly friendly with a person today, and because of some wrong or injury, actual or supposed, may be at outs with the person two or three months later.I-Iow can it be said that what one has remarked three months later can possibly prove the state of mind of this person as to his friend of three months before ?Had the remark been made shortly thereafter there might have been some bare possibility that a state of mind could be shown.But when the remarks are made weeks and even months after they certainly cannot be construed as showing the state of mind at the time of a previous event.

Certainly the alleged statements of Swanson made of and concerning the plaintiff, even if untrue, were qualifiedly privileged, that is to say, that even if true that on the day and date complained of the alleged statements being made by Swanson, which statements were denied by Swanson and by every other witness present in the store except the defendant, the statements were qualifiedly privileged in that young lady clerks in the store had notified Swanson that the plaintiff had picked up the razor blades, gone out of the store with the same in his left hand, and whatever Swanson said or did upon that occasion resulted solely from such information.

Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Yount(C. C. A. 8),66 F.2d 700;Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Watson (C. C. A.),55 F.2d 184;Butler v. Freyman,260 S.W. 523;Giehl v. Winkler,164 Ill.App. 358;Swindell v. Harper,41 S.W. 117;Stuart v. N.Y. Herald Co., 77 N.Y.S. 216.

The damages awarded the plaintiff were grossly excessive as to evince passion and prejudice on the part of the jury.

M. & O. R. R. Co. v. Frazer, 158 Miss. 407;Allen v. Friedman,156 Miss. 77;Chapman v. Powers,150 Miss. 687;Pounders v. Day,151 Miss. 436;City of Greenwood v. Pentecost,148 Miss. 60;Cointment v. Crapper,41 La. Ann. 303;Fitzgerald v. Boulat,13 La. Ann. 116;Mortimer v. Thomas,23 La. Ann. 165;Howard v. Grover,28 Me. 97, 48 Am. Dec. 478;Peterson v. Western Union Tel. Co., 33 L.R.A. 203, 43 L.R.A. 581.

Ross R. Barnett, P. Z. Jones, Arden Barnett and John E. Stone, all of Jackson, for appellee.

The agent, Swanson, was acting within the scope of his employment and in the furtherance of his master's business at the time of the assault and slander.

Scott-Burr Stores v. Edgar, 165 So. 623; Wharton on Agency &amp Agents, sections 117,118;Mechem's Outlines of Agency, sec. 68;Idom v. Weeks & Russell,135 Miss. 65, 99 So. 761;39 C. J., pages 12834287;18 R. C. L., sees. 253, 254, 256. and 266;Sehultz v. Brown,256 F. 190;New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. Broekett,121 U.S. 637;Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Cornelius,131 Miss. 39, 95 So. 90;Alden Mills v. Pendergraft,149 Miss. 595, 115 So. 713;Gill v. Dantzler Lbr. Co.,153 Miss. 559, 121 So. 153;Slaughter v. Holsombaek,166 Miss. 643, 147 So. 138;Biermer v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. R.,85 Miss. 426, 30 So. 210;Southern Bell v. Quick,167 Miss. 438, 149 So. 107;Loper v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co.,166 Miss. 79, 143 So. 743;Walters v. Stonewall Cotton Mills,136...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
27 cases
  • Southwest Drug Stores of Miss., Inc. v. Garner, 44179
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1967
    ...appellee and appellants are read together they correctly announce the law. It was a question of fact as to whether probable cause existed and whether Ratcliff exceeded the qualified privilege. This case is distinguishable from Scott-Burr Stores Corporation v. Edgar, 181 Miss. 486, 177 So. 766 (1938), because there probable cause existed and the court found that under the facts of that case there was no publication of the slanderous words, although there was an unlawful detention. The jury...
  • Scott v. Spencer Gifts, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • July 10, 2015
    ...thirty-six ounces of bacon and a "ham of meat" was actionable per se); SW Drug Stores of Miss., Inc. v. Garner, 195 So. 2d 837, 839, 841 (Miss. 1967) (finding statement "you stole the soap" to be slander per se); Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Edgar, 177 So. 766, 767, 769 (1938) (holding that "you stole some razor blades" was statement constituting slander per se). In arguing that accusations of stealing a choker do impute the level of wrongdoing giving rise to slander per se, Defendant...
  • Henry v. Collins, 42759
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 02, 1963
    ...immorality, etc., and imputations of dereliction of duty, favoritism, or misconduct in office, are not privileged.' See also Edmonds v. Delta Democrat Publishing Company, 230 Miss. 583, 93 So.2d 171; Scott-Burr Stores Corporation v. Edgar, 181 Miss. 486, 177 So. 766; Kroger Grocery & Banking Company v. Harpole, supra; Louisiana Oil Corporation v. Renno, 173 Miss. 609, 157 So. 705, 98 A.L.R. 1296; Hodges v. Cunningham, 160 Miss. 576, 577, 135 So. 215;...
  • Wesley Health Sys., LLC v. Forrest Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • October 09, 2012
    ...Supp. 319, 325 (S.D. Miss. 1987) ("a master is liable for the acts of a servant when they are done in the furtherance of his employer's business, and within the real or apparent scope of his employment."); Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Edgar, 177 So. 766, 768-69 (Miss. 1938) (where manager of store acted within the scope of his duties, store could be held liable for his actions, including allegedly defamatory statements); Hutton v. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 909 So. 2dtheories of liability - that Forrest General either controlled AAA or conspired with it. If Forrest General controlled AAA, then it could plausibly be liable for AAA's tortious actions. See Bussen, 682 F. Supp. at 325; Edgar, 177 So. at 768-69; Hutton, 909 So. 2d at 96.F. Twombly/Iqbal Finally, Forrest General argues that all of Plaintiff's claims against it are based upon insufficient allegations of fact, citing Twombly7 and Iqbal.8 The Court disagrees....
  • Get Started for Free