Tribble v. Yazoo & M.V.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | 15,017 |
| Citation | 103 Miss. 1,60 So. 2 |
| Parties | L. M. TRIBBLE v. YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Carroll county, HON. G. A. MCLEAN Judge.
Suit by L. M. Trimble against the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
Critz & Critz and T. C. Kimbrough, for appellant.
Mayes & Longstreet, for appellee.
Argued orally by W. J. LAMB, for appellant.
This case is before the court on pleadings. The record, which contains 172 pages, consists almost entirely of declarations, demurrers, pleas, motions, and orders relating to such pleadings.
It is shown by the declaration that appellant was for several years in the employ of appellee, and held the position of agent at Boyle, Mississippi. While at Boyle, he was not only agent for appellee, but also for the American Express Company. On March 19, 1906, his books and accounts were audited by the auditors of both appellee and the Express Company, and a report was made that appellant was short in his cash. Appellant denies the correctness of this report, and states that he was not short because of a certain claim which he had against appellee and two salary checks which he held. Afterwards, appellant endeavored to obtain a bond from two surety companies, and it is alleged in the declaration that he was prevented from so obtaining the surety companies' execution of the bond by reason of certain letters written by appellee to the surety companies which "did not give the true record of the appellant while acting as such agent at Boyle, Mississippi, but contained false and scandalous matters reflecting upon his honesty, integrity, and qualifications for performing the work of railroad agent." The letters specially complained of were written: (1) To the Guaranty Company of North America, on April 23, 1907; and (2) to the American Surety Company, in July, 1907. The original declaration was filed March 27, 1908. There were two amended declarations afterwards filed, and this case is appealed from the action of the trial court in sustaining a demurrer to the second amended declaration.
The declaration charges malice. The two letters above referred to, on which the suit is based, are practically the same, and we will therefore only set out here the first-named letter in full. It is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Harpole
... ... Miss. 808; Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Boltz, 123 ... Miss. 550, 86. So. 354; Tribble v. Y. & M. V. R. Co., 103 ... Miss. 1, 60 So. 2 ... A false ... charge of stealing is ... Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Ely, 83 Miss. 519, ... 35 So. 873; Yazoo, & M. V. R. Co. v. Rivers, 93 ... Miss. 557, 46 So. 705; Warren v. State (Miss.), 164 ... ...
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Majure
...Co., 74 A. 243; Manion v. Jewel Tea Co., 160 N.W. 767; Neely v. Payne, 89 So. 669; Armour Creameries v. Bowie, 163 So. 543; Tribble v. Y. & M. V. R. Co., 60 So. 2; Valley Dry Goods Co. v. Buford, 75 So. 252, Miss. 414; Louisiana Oil Corp. v. Renno, 157 So. 705; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Irby, 35 S......
- Miller v. Mix
-
Cooper v. Davidson
...425; Walker v. Smith, 19 So. 102; Scott v. Peebles, 2 S. & M. 546; McLean v. Warring, 13 So. 236; Furr v. Speed, 74 Miss. 423; Ribble v. Y. & M. V. Ry., 60 So. 2. assertion of rights does not in law charge wilful misconduct against the opponent and does not subject the claimant to liability......