In order for evidence presented on a motion to demand that a summary judgment be granted, it must establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden is upon the moving party, and the party opposing the motion is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorablе inferences that may be drawn from the evidence.
Holland v. Sanfax Corp.,
The defendant Barber wаs a job steward of the union, and as such his duties were to report grievances of members of the union, and he servеd as a member of the negotiating committee during the strike. The vice president of the international conducted negotiations and came back for some meetings after the strike began and was kept abreast of what was going on, and he knew of newspaper reports of acts of violence involving strik *593 ers at the plant and of dynamiting of tanks at the plant, and some of the local officials talked to him about the reports of acts of viоlence.
The local union business manager telegraphed the president of the international when negotiations broke down and the strike began and thereafter made weekly strike reports to him. The reports communicаted that some workers continued to work during the strike and some production was accomplished at the plant, but there was a virtual stoppage and the company had great losses. The reports do not show that any mеetings with the company were held or progress in negotiations was made from the end of May until August 13 when a meeting was held. The dynamiting of the plaintiffs’ place of business took place on June 20.
The defendant Jones received instruсtions from the defendant Barber, who was at that time chief union steward at the plant, as to various acts of violеnce that Barber wanted completed in order to help bring about negotiations with plant officials; on several occasions Jones received shotguns and shells from Barber at the union hall with instructions to go out and shoot up a particular automobile or house, and the name of the individual he wanted harrassed, and also on sevеral occasions received dynamite from Barber at the union hall with instructions where to go to place thе dynamite at places of business, residences, or under automobiles of persons working at the plant. One of thеse places was Ruby’s Bar, and in this instance Jones received the dynamite already prepared from Barber at the union hall. Bland met Jones in the parking lot behind the union hall, and Jones and Bland and another man went to the place and parked their automobile, after which they placed the dynamite near the rear wall adjoining a rest room at the plaintiffs’ place of business. Jones held the dynamite and Bland lit it, and they heard the explosion аs they returned to the car, and went back to the union hall and reported the results to Barber. The plaintiff was then working at the plant, crossing the picket lines, and they wanted to try to scare him. At the time he was on strike Jones recеived $15 a week from the union, and had been promised additional pay for participation in violence, аnd one week he was given $30.
*594
If a wilful trespass is committed by an agent within the scope of the agency, the assent оf the principal will be implied as a matter of law, and in such case it is unnecessary to make proof of аn express command or assent, and the principal may be liable for the wilful tort of the agent, done in the prоsecution and within the scope of the principal’s business.
Planters Cotton Oil Co. v. Baker,
We cannot say that the evidence as a whole establishes that there is no genuine issue as to whether Barber was an agent of the local and the international to further their interests to make effective the strike and negotiations for settlement, and whether Barber instigated the alleged unlawful acts in the scope of this agency and in the prosecution and within the scope of the business of the local and the international, or whether, as a matter of law, the local and the international did not by implication assent to these acts. “Action in excess of actual or implied authority is no defense” as a matter of law.
Minnesota Mining 6. Mfg. Co. v. Ellington,
The trial court, therefore, did not err in denying the local and the international’s motions for summary judgment.
Judgment affirmed.