Strickland v. S.H. Kress & Co.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | 340. |
| Citation | 112 S.E. 30,183 N.C. 534 |
| Parties | STRICKLAND v. S. H. KRESS & CO. ET AL. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; Kerr, Judge.
Action by Dola Strickland against S. H. Kress & Co. and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant named appeals, and plaintiff appeals from an order setting aside the verdict as to a part of the recovery. Affirmed.
Where the general manager of one of a chain of stores operated by a corporation, after discharging an employee, and in response to a request for information from employee's husband uttered slanderous statements about such employee within the hearing of other employees, the corporation cannot be held liable therefor, as the statements were not within the apparent or real scope of the manager's employment.
The action is to recover damages of defendant company for breach of contract to employ plaintiff for the year 1921, and for slander in wrongfully and maliciously charging plaintiff with larceny in January of said year. There was evidence on part of plaintiff tending to show that defendant S. H. Kress & Co. is a corporation or partnership having a number of connected retail stores in different sections of the country, and doing an immense volume of business; that one of these stores is located in Durham, N. C., and defendant Chas. H. Haynie is general manager of same; that in 1920 plaintiff was an employee of defendant company, engaged as clerk at the candy counter, at $12 per week, and in November of said year defendant Haynie, as manager, expressed himself as greatly pleased with plaintiff's work, and offered to take her into the office for the year 1921; she would receive $24 per week, and if she proved efficient she would be transferred to one of the larger stores at another raise of wages; that plaintiff agreed to this proposition, and entered on her work under the same, when in the latter part of January, she was wrongfully dismissed from her employment and in breach of her contract as above stated; that soon after plaintiff's dismissal, her husband called at said office to inquire the cause of same, when defendant Chas H. Haynie falsely wrongfully, and maliciously stated in effect to her said husband, in the hearing of other employees, that defendant had taken $10, of the company's money, and lied about it and went home and pretended to be sick, and was afraid to come back to the office because she was afraid that he would catch up with her.
Defendant Chas. H. Haynie filed no answer to the complaint. Defendant Kress & Co. answered, denying any and all liability either for breach of contract, or for the alleged slander, and there was evidence on the part of said defendant in support of its said denial, and further to the effect that said Chas. H Haynie, while general manager, was not authorized to hire employees except by the month, and that the alleged contract by the year was entirely beyond his authority. On issues submitted the jury rendered the following verdict:
"(1) Did the defendant Chas. H. Haynie, manager for S. H. Kress & Co., contract and agree with the plaintiff for and in behalf of said Kress & Co. to pay her $24 per week for her services for the year 1921?
Answer: Yes.
(2) Did the defendants breach the said contract?
Answer: Yes.
(3) What, if any, damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover by reason of the said breach of contract?
Answer: $725.40.
(4) Did the defendants wrongfully and willfully speak of and concerning the plaintiff the slanderous words alleged in the complaint?
Answer: Yes.
(5) What, if any, damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover for and on account of said slanderous words spoken of and concerning her?
Answer: $2,500."
Thereafter, on motion, the court as a matter of law set aside the verdict on the fourth and fifth issues as to defendant S. H. Kress & Co., and entered judgment against defendants for the $725.40 damages awarded in breach of the contract, and against defendant Chas. H. Haynie for $2,500 damages for wrongful defamation. Defendants excepted and appealed, assigning errors, and plaintiff also excepted and appealed, assigning error in setting aside the verdict on the fourth and fifth issues as to defendant Kress & Co.
Lee & Harris and S. C. Brawley, all of Durham, for plaintiff.
Fuller, Reade & Fuller, of Durham, for defendants.
Defendant's Appeal.
The defendant Haynie has neither answered nor appealed, and the questions presented are in adjustment of the rights of plaintiff as against defendant Kress & Co. In this view the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Majure
... ... Bufkin, 132 So. 86, 159 Miss. 350; Strickland v. S ... H. Kress & Co., 112 S.E. 30; Frazer v. N. O. & G. N ... R. R. Co., 130 So. 493; ... ...
-
Kelly v. Newark Shoe Stores Co.
... ... Sawyer v. Railroad, supra; Ange v. Woodmen, 173 N.C ... 33, 35, 91 S.E. 586; Strickland v. Kress & Co., 183 ... N.C. 534, 537, 112 S.E. 30. This latter case marks with ... distinctive ... ...
-
Snow v. De Butts
... ... would not impose liability on the defendant. Strickland ... v. S. H. Kress & Co., 183 N.C. 534, 112 S.E. 30; ... ...
-
Lamm v. Charles Stores Co., Inc.
...in the furtherance of the employer's business or was reasonably incident to the discharge of the duties intrusted to the employee." Strickland v. Kress, supra. does the fact that Long, as manager, had received checks from other people in payment of merchandise have any bearing upon the prin......