Sudderth v. National Lead Company

• Decision Date: 03 December 1959
• Docket Number: No. 17825.,17825.
• Citation: 272 F.2d 259
• Parties: J. D. SUDDERTH, d/b/a S & W Body Works, and Hyatt Parts & Supply Company, Appellants, v. NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

272 F.2d 259 (1959)

J. D. SUDDERTH, d/b/a S & W Body Works, and Hyatt Parts & Supply Company, Appellants, v. NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 17825.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

December 3, 1959.

H. A. Stephens, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Glyndon C. Pruitt and Merritt & Pruitt, Buford, Ga., Smith, Field, Doremus & Ringel, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel, for appellants.

Edward L. Savell, Atlanta, Ga., Woodruff, Latimer & Savell, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel, for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, CAMERON and JONES, Circuit Judges.

CAMERON, Circuit Judge.

Appellee National Lead Company, a New Jersey corporation, brought this diversity action against Robert E. Poss and J. D. Sudderth, resident citizens of the State of Georgia, and Hyatt Parts & Supply Company, a corporation of that state. Its basis was damages for the alleged wrongful conversion by Poss of 11,800 pounds of body solder with a value of $53.35 per 100 pounds from appellee's warehouse in Atlanta, Georgia, the alleged sale of said solder to appellant Sudderth and the alleged sale of same by Sudderth to Hyatt, each having knowledge that it had been stolen. The amount claimed jointly and severally against the three defendants was $6,297.37 as compensatory damages, along with punitive damages against each appellant in the sum of $5,000, it being alleged that the conversion was, in each instance, wilful and wanton. The jury returned a verdict against Poss for $2,000 compensatory, and $1,000 punitive damages; against Sudderth for $2,000 compensatory, and $1,500 punitive damages; and against Hyatt for $1,750 compensatory, and $1,000 punitive damages. Poss did not appeal, and Sudderth and Hyatt appeal separately — the appeals being by the parties consolidated for hearing before us — each assigning several alleged errors of the court below.¹

Sudderth answered in effect that he had purchased approximately 4,000 pounds of solder from Poss, denying that he had any knowledge of defect in the title to the solder, and Hyatt likewise answered that it had purchased approximately 3,500 pounds of solder from Sudderth.

The evidence, except for two invoices, was introduced entirely by the appellee, including the introduction of Messrs. Hyatt and Sudderth as adverse witnesses. After appellee had cross-examined, they were not questioned or placed back on the stand by appellants. Except for the two invoices offered on behalf of the appellants, therefore, the evidence consisted of that introduced by the appellee. Besides the testimony of the defendant Sudderth and the ranking officer of the defendant Hyatt, appellee placed upon the stand a state officer who had made an investigation of the case and who had talked with Poss, Sudderth and Hyatt. The statements he attributed to these three were admitted without objection. This evidence warranted the jury in finding that the facts attending the transactions giving rise to the suit were these:

Poss was employed as a truck driver for Central Truck Lines and was accustomed to pick up shipments from appellee's Atlanta warehouse, sometimes after those in charge of the warehouse had left in the afternoon. Poss had a rather free run of the warehouse and after getting bills of lading from the office, would go into the warehouse and pick up and load on his truck the items called for therein. It was while these practices were being pursued that Poss pilfered the 30%-tin solder which he sold to Sudderth and Sudderth sold to Hyatt, both having knowledge of sufficient facts to indicate that it had been stolen.

The records of inventories indicated a shortage of this particular item of 11,475 pounds during the period from May 25, 1954 to October 28, 1955. Poss sold to Sudderth, an automobile repairman, 4,000 pounds or more of this solder at a price considerably below the wholesale market price and made delivery to Sudderth from the trunk of his personal automobile. Sudderth sold a like amount to Hyatt, a dealer in automobile parts and supplies, also at a price considerably under the wholesale market price; and the investigating officer found in Hyatt's place of business 4,000 pounds of appellee's solder which had plaintiff's name on the cartons in which it was contained. Hyatt was a distributor for appellee's solder, and its salesmen had been unable to interest him, during the period, in the purchase of appellee's products at the prevailing market price. Messrs. Sudderth and Hyatt, when placed upon the stand by appellee, did not give satisfactory explanations of the deals by which the solder had been acquired at such a low price.

Under the Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance Society, 1943, 320 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 5, 88 L.Ed. 15, we think that the court below properly denied appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to allege facts entitling the appellee to recover in excess of the jurisdictional amount of $3,000. In that case, the district court had dismissed Bell's complaint, and we had affirmed its action² upon the ground that Bell's claim of $200,000 damages to himself on an insurance certificate in the amount of $1,000 was entirely colorable and was made for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction and that it was "legally inconceivable" that he would be entitled to a judgment for more than $1,000. Citing its decision in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 1938, 303 U.S. 283, 289, 58 S. Ct. 586, 590, 82 L.Ed. 845, holding that "The inability of plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction," the Supreme Court sustained Bell's complaint because it found itself "unable to say that under petitioner's complaint evidence could not be introduced at a trial justifying a jury verdict for actual and punitive damages exceeding $3,000." 320 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 7

Aside from the fact that there is no showing that appellee here was not claiming punitive damages in good faith, it had lost through pilferage a quantity of solder whose value was greatly in excess of the $3,000 limit, and there is no showing that it was not justified in alleging and attempting to prove that all of this solder had been handled by all of the defendants in the same manner the 4,000 pounds had admittedly been handled.³

The several efforts of appellants to require the parties to be separated and separate trials to be held in the court below were and are not backed by convincing authority, and there is no showing that any prejudice resulted from the prosecution of the claims against the three defendants in one action. The situation comes squarely within the purview of Rule 20 F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A.⁴ The trial court had the discretion to order separate trials under the Rule, but the decision of this procedural matter rests with the trial judge, 3 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d Edition, p. 2740, and we find no abuse of discretion here.

It was not proper for the attorney for Poss, in his opening statement to the jury, to advert to the fact that Poss had entered a plea of nolo contendere and had been punished in the state court, this being in violation of a pre-trial order. As soon as the question was raised the court charged the jury to disregard the statement. This cured the error, and the court below had the discretion to deny the requested mistrial. Moreover, the officer who investigated the case testified to Poss' admissions that he had stolen the solder. The cautionary charge to the jury was, therefore, in the nature of a windfall for the appellants and we find no reversible error in connection with the episode.

The question of whether punitive damages were recoverable in an action such as this was vigorously argued before the court below and the argument is repeated before us. When the question was first pressed before the trial court it seemed much in doubt about it. It proceeded, however, to submit to the jury, under proper instructions, the question of punitive damages and due exception was taken by appellants.⁵ The court gave detailed study and consideration to the cases in passing upon the motions for new trial and for judgments n. o. v. and rendered an opinion acknowledging that "The question is not without difficulty," but deciding that it had properly submitted the question to the jury.⁶

In its opinion the court quoted the sections of the Georgia Code dealing with Trover⁷ and decided, contrary to appellee's contention, that, under such cases as Mitchell v. Georgia & Alabama Railway, 111 Ga. 760, 36 S.E. 971, 51 A.L.R. 622, the general statute authorizing the award of punitive damages in tort actions⁸ should apply. It adverted to the fact that the statutes covering trover and punitive damages had been of force in Georgia from a date preceding the year 1860, and that there was no Georgia decision excluding punitive damages in cases of unlawful conversion. It felt that such cases as Sapp v. Howe, 1949, 79 Ga.App. 1, 52 S.E.2d 571, Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Earl, 1913, 139 Ga. 456, 77 S.E. 638; and Beaver v. Magid, 1937, 56 Ga.App. 272, 192 S.E. 497, tended to support the...