Zeigler v. Southern States Supply Co.

• Decision Date: 17 June 1937
• Docket Number: 14502.
• Citation: 191 S.E. 889,184 S.C. 153
• Parties: ZEIGLER v. SOUTHERN STATES SUPPLY CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

191 S.E. 889

184 S.C. 153

ZEIGLER v. SOUTHERN STATES SUPPLY CO.

No. 14502.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 17, 1937

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; Philip H Stoll, Judge.

Action by P. B. Zeigler against the Southern States Supply Company. From an order dismissing a demurrer to the complaint defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Royall & Wright, of Florence, for appellant.

McEachin & Townsend, of Florence, for respondent.

CARTER Justice.

This action by P. B. Zeigler, plaintiff, against the defendant Southern States Suply Company, a corporation, was commenced in the court of common pleas for Florence county, this state November, 1936, for recovery of judgment against the defendant in the sum of $25,000, alleging that the defendant published false and malicious, libelous and defamatory matter and charged plaintiff with commission of a crime by publishing and circulating a notice in the Morning News, a daily newspaper published in Florence, S.C. To the plaintiff's complaint the defendant interposed a demurrer, which was heard by his honor, Judge Philip H. Stoll. Judge Stoll, after due consideration, dismissed the demurrer and issued an order accordingly. From Judge Stoll's order dismissing the demurrer the defendant duly appealed to this court upon the following exceptions:

"1. That his Honor, the trial Judge, erred in holding that

The libelous implications and inferences claimed by the plaintiff to inhere in the publication set out in the complaint being, in view of the remaining allegations of the complaint, a question for the jury, it is, therefore,

Ordered that the demurrer be, and it is hereby dismissed.

2. That his Honor, the trial Judge, erred in failing to sustain the demurrer on the grounds that the facts stated in the complaint are totally insufficient to make the said publication libelous."

In order to give a clear understanding of the questions presented on the appeal, we quote the following allegations of the plaintiff's complaint:

"1. That the plaintiff is a resident of the County of Florence, State of South Carolina; and that the defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina, with its principal place of business at Columbia, South Carolina, and maintaining an office and agents in the County of Florence, State of South Carolina.

2. That for sometime prior to June, 1936, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as one of its representatives in the Florence district in the installation of heating equipment, etc.; but that about the latter part of June, 1936, the plaintiff severed his connection with the defendant company.

3. That on October 17, 1936, the defendant caused to be published and advertised of and about the plaintiff in the Morning News, a daily newspaper of wide circulation published in Florence, S. C., the following:

'Notice-This is to advise that P. B. Zeigler, Florence, S. C., is not connected with our firm in any way. Southern States Supply Co., Florence, S. C., Columbia, S. C.'

4. That in and by the publication above set out the defendant intended to and did charge the plaintiff with holding himself out as a representative of the defendant company, when in fact he was not such representative, and thereby obtaining money, credit, goods, orders, etc., under false pretenses; that by the style, manner and arrangement of the said notice the defendant intended to and did with unusual publicity announce to the world that the plaintiff was endeavoring to foist himself off upon the public as having the financial backing of the defendant company, when in fact he was not connected with the said company, and that the defendant thereby intended to and did convey to the world a charge that the plaintiff was using the defendant's name for ulterior purposes and obtaining money, credit, goods, orders, etc., under false pretenses, and that such was the plaintiff's dishonesty and falsity that the defendant was forced to protect itself and its reputation and standing by public notice of the criminal course of the plaintiff.

5. That the said notice and the manner of its publication, as above, and the implications, insinuations, and charges involved therein, as made by the defendant against the plaintiff, and meant to be made by the defendant against the plaintiff, were false, wanton, malicious, libelous and defamatory, humiliating and embarrassing the plaintiff, casting upon him contempt, ridicule, scorn and obloquy, causing the plaintiff to lose business and business connections, casting doubt upon the plaintiff's financial dealings, and reflecting upon his honesty, business integrity, and credit standing, charging the plaintiff with the commission of a crime under the laws of the State of South Carolina, that is, of securing and endeavoring to secure credit, goods, orders, etc., under false pretenses.

6. That, by reason of the false, malicious, libelous and defamatory accusations and criminal charges as above published and circulated by the defendant concerning the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been...