Stebbins v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 19 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | 12911. |
| Citation | 224 P. 714,101 Okla. 188,1924 OK 227 |
| Parties | STEBBINS ET AL. v. EDWARDS. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 1, 1924.
Syllabus by the Court.
A person has a right to carry on and prosecute a lawful business in which he is engaged without unlawful molestation or interference from any person, and any malicious interference with such business is an "unlawful act" and an actionable wrong.
The basis of such an action is the fraudulent and malicious acts of the defendant in interfering with plaintiff's business, and the statements of the means used to effect this purpose all combine to produce a single cause of action, and are not objectionable for duplicity.
Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; W. B. Williams, Judge.
Action by Oscar W. Edwards against Grant C. Stebbins and others. From an order overruling demurrers to the amended petition defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Biddison & Campbell, of Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.
West Sherman, Davidson & Moore, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Tulsa county, Okl., overruling joint and several demurrers of the plaintiffs in error, defendants below, to the amended petition of the defendant in error, plaintiff below. The amended petition alleged, in substance, that the plaintiff had been engaged in the real estate business in Tulsa, and in taking, selling, trading, and dealing in oil and gas mining leases, both as a broker and agent for others and on his own account; that among other things he had taken a 99-year lease contract on certain property in Tulsa from the defendants and was engaged in the erection of a building thereon, when the defendants entered into an unlawful confederation and conspiracy to bring him and his business into such bad repute as to destroy his credit, and prevent him from completing the improvements, and make it impossible for him to longer do business in the city of Tulsa, and drive him out of business in Tulsa; and that in furtherance of this scheme the defendants had falsely and maliciously circulated reports that he was unreliable and untrustworthy in his business dealings; and that he had been engaged in defrauding persons in various parts of the country; that they had been compelled to change the name of the building because it could never be a success as the Edwards Building on account of the bad standing and reputation of the plaintiff; that plaintiff's past record was very bad; that he had a very bad reputation in the community; that he bore a bad reputation for crookedness; and that he was unreliable and untrustworthy in his business dealings; also that they had advised materialmen to file claims on the building against the plaintiff, and that these defendants stated to the holders of such claims that they proposed to have the property sold through the courts and buy it in and construct the improvements themselves; and that the suits which Edwards had brought against them in which he was contending for his rights in the premises were really a bluff, and were not brought in good faith, or with any hope on his part of succeeding therein; they published in the Tulsa World, and by posted notices, that plaintiff no longer had any interest in the building; and that all these statements were false and were fraudulently made for the purpose of ruining plaintiff's business, and of making it impossible for him to continue in business in Tulsa; and that plaintiff had previously been making out of his business approximately $100,000 a year, and that by reason of the matters and things complained of in the petition constituting the conspiracy so entered into by the defendants, and their acts in pursuance thereof, his real estate business and his credit was almost wholly destroyed, and his business had been injured, and that he had been damaged therein, in the amount of $150,000, for which he prayed a judgment against the defendants as his damages.
The defendants present the case to this court on the theory that the petition sought to allege a cause of action for slander and that the allegations thereof are insufficient to constitute such cause of action, and that the petition contains a misjoinder of a cause of action for slander of the plaintiff individually and slander of title. It is our opinion that counsel for the defendants are in error in assuming that the action is one to recover for slander. While the petition contains allegations of alleged defamatory statements in connection with the defendant and his business, the gist of the action as set out in this petition is for the recovery of damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the unlawful act of the defendants in injuring the business of the plaintiff by false and malicious statements and representations, and malicious acts performed by the defendants with the intention of ruining the plaintiff's business. As we view the case the gravaman of the action is not the slander of the plaintiff, the slander of title, or the conspiracy alleged to have existed between the defendants, but the wrongful acts of the defendants in bringing the ruin of the legitimate business of the plaintiff. Section 5969, C. S. 1921, provides:
"Any person who suffers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of another, may recover from the person in fault a compensation therefor in money, which is called damages."
If an injury sustained by a person's business by means of false and malicious statements and representations made by the defendants for the purpose and with the intention of destroying such person's established business is an unlawful act within the meaning of section 5969, supra, the petition in the instant case states a good cause of action. The plaintiff had a right to carry on and prosecute the business in which he was engaged without unlawful molestation or interference from any person, and, while in business competition a...
To continue reading
Request your trial