State ex rel. Callison v. National Linen Service Corp., 16861
| Citation | 81 S.E.2d 342,225 S.C. 232 |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 16861,16861 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. CALLISON, Atty. Gen., v. NATIONAL LINEN SERVICE CORP. et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Nash & Wilson, Frank A. McLeod, Sumter, for appellant.
Lee & Moise, Sumter, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an action brought in the name of the State of South Carolina against the National Linen Service Corporation operating Charleston Linen Service and one F. R. Wohning in the Common Pleas Court of Sumter County.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants entered into a trust or combination, contract, scheme or arrangement with the object of putting one Sydney Kline out of business in violation of Section 66-51 Code of Laws for 1952. Demurrer was interposed by Respondents and it is admitted for this purpose that the Defendant, Wohnig, and other named persons were agents of and acting for the National Linen Service Corporation. The Demurrer was sustained by Judge Brailsford and the appeal from his Order presents the sole question of whether or not employees of the corporation acting in their individual capacity can conspire with each other and their employer corporation to destroy competition in such a manner as to come within the provisions of Section 66-51 of the 1952 Code; the pertinent portion of which appears as follows:
'All arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts or combinations * * * (c) between two or more persons as individuals, firms, corporations, syndicates or associations that may lessen or affect in any manner the full and free competition in any tariff, rates, tolls, premium or prices in any branch of trade, business or commerce are declared to be against public policy, unlawful and void.'
The trial Judge held in sustaining the Demurrer that the above quoted section of the Code did not apply to individual employees of corporations acting with such employer corporations, and that such employee or employees could not be counted to make up the second party to such scheme or arrangement and with this finding we are in accord.
The prime rule requires strict construction of a statutory provision which would work a forfeiture or inflict a penalty. Independence Ins. Co. v. Independent Life & Acc. Ins. Co., a Florida Corporation, 218 S.C. 22, 61 S.E.2d 399; 30 S.E. Dig. Statutes, k241 p. 881. And if there be any doubt in the construction of the criminal statute, such doubt must be resolved in favor of the Defendant, State v Germany, 216 S.C. 182, 57 S.E.2d 165, and penal statutes must be strictly construed and one who seeks to recover a penalty for failure of another to discharge some duty imposed by law must bring the case clearly within the language and meaning of the statute awarding the penalty. State ex rel. Moody v. Stem, 213 S.C. 465, 50 S.E.2d 175.
A corporation can act as such only through its agents and employees. To hold that such agents, employees or servants in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Derivium Capital, LLC
...be liable for conspiring with the corporation because a corporation cannot conspire with itself. See State v. National Linen Service Corp., 225 S.C. 232, 81 S.E.2d 342, 344 (1954) (finding a corporation cannot conspire with itself). However, South Carolina law recognizes that agents of a co......
-
Delaney v. First Fin. of Charleston, Inc.
...it is available only in the specific circumstances prescribed by the statute. See State ex rel. Callison v. Nat'l Linen Serv. Corp. , 225 S.C. 232, 234, 81 S.E.2d 342, 343 (1954) (“The prime rule requires strict construction of a statutory provision which would work a forfeiture or inflict ......
-
Nappier v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co., Civ. A. No. AC/911
...465, 50 S.E.2d 175; Independence Ins. Co. v. Independent Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 218 S.C. 22, 61 S.E.2d 399; State ex rel. v. Nat. Linen Service Corp., 225 S.C. 232, 81 S.E.2d 342. Publication of the name "of any woman, maid or woman child upon whom the crime of rape or an assault with intent......
-
State v. National Postal Transport Ass'n
...S.E.2d 175; Independence Ins. Co. v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 218 S.C. 22, 61 S.E.2d 399; State ex rel. Callison v. National Linen Service Corp., 225 S.C. 232, 81 S.E.2d 342. Title 37, like most massive legislation, has its cloudy spots. For example, so much of Section 37-110 a......
-
South Carolina. Practice Text
...91. Havird Oil Co. v. Marathon Oil Co., 149 F.3d 283, 291-93 (4th Cir. 1998). 92. State ex rel. Callison v. Nat’l Linen Serv. Corp., 81 S.E.2d 342, 344 (S.C. 1954). 93. Havird Oil Co. , 149 F.3d at 291-93. 94. 15 U.S.C. § 2. South Carolina 44-13 whereby any one of the purposes or objects me......