Webb v. Culberson, Heller & Norton, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 April 1973
• Docket Number: No. GC 72-34-S.,GC 72-34-S.
• Parties: Taylor WEBB, Plaintiff, v. CULBERSON, HELLER & NORTON, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

357 F. Supp. 923

Taylor WEBB, Plaintiff, v. CULBERSON, HELLER & NORTON, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. GC 72-34-S.

United States District Court, N. D. Mississippi, Greenville Division.

April 26, 1973.

Thomas R. Crews, Jackson, Miss., Charles L. Sullivan, of Sullivan, Smith & Hunt, Clarksdale, Miss., for plaintiff.

Campbell, DeLong, Keady, Robertson & Hagwood, Greenville, Miss., George H. Hagle, of Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Jones, Houston, Tex., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

ORMA R. SMITH, District Judge.

This action has been submitted to the court on the motion of defendants James V. Culberson, Robert S. Heller and Edward M. Norton under Rule 12(b) F.R. Civ.P. to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court has received briefs and, after having given full consideration to the motion, has reached the conclusion that the motion is well taken and should be sustained on both grounds.

The complaint herein seeks to recover damages from the corporate defendant, Culberson, Heller and Norton, Inc., for breach of a contract made between the corporate defendant and plaintiff.

The individual defendants, Culberson, Heller and Norton, are the principal owners of the corporate defendant, and during the time of which the complaint is made acted as officers and employees of said corporation in its dealings with plaintiff concerning the contract in question.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint making the individual defendants parties defendant in the action seeking judgment of and from said individuals, jointly and severally, for actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined as reasonable by the court or by jury upon the trial of this cause, basing his demands upon the allegation that ". . Each of the individual defendants conspired with each other and with the corporate defendant to have the corporate defendant breach the contract with plaintiff and to have corporate defendant refuse to carry out the obligations of the contract."

The essential and underlying facts, as reflected by the record, show that plaintiff claims to have been injured because the corporate defendant breached its contract with him, and that the breach, if any, was occasioned by the decisions, actions and activities of the individual defendants who were acting in the scope of their employment and in the furtherance of the business of the corporation by which they were employed. It is not alleged that the individual defendants committed any act of a personal nature except in connection with the corporate affairs.

It is clear and generally held throughout the country that ". . . An authorized agent for a disclosed principal, in the absence of circumstances showing that personal responsibility was incurred, is not personally liable to the other contracting party". Chipman v. Lollar, 304 F.Supp. 440, 445 (N.D.Miss. 1969). See also, 3 C.J.S. Agency § 215 and 3 Am.Jur.2d § 393, Page 654.

Applying this recognized rule of law in the action sub judice, the individual defendants who were acting as the agents and representatives of the corporate defendant cannot be held personally liable for any alleged breach of contract on the part of the corporate defendant.

The plaintiff attempts to sustain a right of action against the individual defendants on the theory, as stated on Page 3 of plaintiff's brief, ". . . that the individual Defendants...