*1 et & Ins. Cо. Cas. Life Mann. v. Term, 1925 S., 438; Vandercook, 170 U. Ed., 632, 648, v. and Vance Ed.,1100. Ct.,
18 S. concurs. Watts Justce ET AL. TENNESSEE CO. OF INS. & CASUALTY v. LIFE MANN E., 79) (129 S. Agent’s Failure to Turn as and Slander —Remark
1. Libel superin- of insurer’s Held Slanderous. —Remark Money Collected to turn in had failed meeting agent that former agent’s tendent stolen, collected, money had been held so withheld and that money slanderous. Remark Had Refеr- Slanderous and Slander. —.Whether Libel Jury. agent’s action former —In Held for ence to Plaintiff slander, superin- whether question of insurer’s for against insurer agent remark to a former tendent, making alleged slanderous jury. plaintiff, held for meeting, reference agents’ at an by Servant Liable for Slander Servant —Master
3. Master Employment. by for slandеr liable —Master is Scope of Within him, in reference to servant, intrusted to discharging while duties hand, em- of and while particular matter in ployment. Knowl- Servant Without Servant —.Retention of
4. Master of servant of Ratification. —Retention edge Tort Not Evidence of by was not evidence of tort committed servant notice without of tort. rаtification master’s Held Liable Slanderous Insurance —Insurance Agents. company —Insurance held Superintendent Remark superin- agent slanderous remark made its fоrmer liable to agents, discussing while collection agents at tendent insurance, regardless of payments due on industrial by agents of slander; having the remark been madе had ratified whether it employer’s business. superintendent while Richland, 1924. Order J., February, Before Bonham, and to direct verdict affirmed nonsuit to refusing trial reversed. new order grаnting In- Casualty F. Mann against Life Action Tennessee and George Smith. surance & Cas. Mann. Ins. Co. Arguments S. C. Verdict for and from an order plaintiff, *2 trial as to the Insurance and de- Company, plaintiff fendant, Smith, and from an order appeal; refusing nonsuit, verdict, and to direct a Company, appeals.
Defendant was of a district office supеrintendent and, such, of the defendant Insurance super- vised the work 17 sold industrial insur- of or 18 who agents, ance and thereon. collected the weekly payments slanderous remark made at a of which the agents, 12 showed was attended by A agents. number of the who had been agents, present testified meeting, that defendant in discussing collеctons, referred to the “debit” successor was plaintiff’s and stated that collecting, an had left the agent, who service of collected, had. not in money turned and that company, money not so turned had been stolen.
Messrs. A. F. Spigner and D. Robinson, W. for plaintiff, cite: Liability master E., 125 slander'by servant: S. of for 912; C., 511; 120 E., 332; 113 R., S. 128; 24 A. S. 117 L. C., 236; E., 465; S. 109 C., 315; C., 395; S. 82 64 S. S. 21 R. 873; Cas., 620; L. 17 Ann. (N. S.), Eed., 231 390; A., 384; 145 Minn., C. C. 250; W., 769; 135 160 N. Newell on 330; Libel Slandеr 309 and (4th Ed.), Secs. 2 Mechem on 1072; Corporations, 1652 and 1 Secs. Mora- 730; wetz on Private 726 Corporations, 5 Secs. Fletcher on 3347 1921 Corporations, 517; Sec. Supplement, рage 5 Thompson 5541; Cvc., 26 Corporations (2d Ed.), Sec. 1526; 779; 14-A L., 383, C. 17 J., R. C. 135. Sec. Lia- bility E., 900; master torts servant: 115 S. of willful C., 28; 467; 124 C., C., 522; 113 E., S. 99 101 S. S. S. 856; C., 548; E., 608; 77 58 11 R. A. S. S. (N. S.), 217; 822; C., E., 490; C., 431; 108 67 94 46 S. S. S. S. E., 47; C., 290; 655; A„ 105 89 21 R. E., 279. S. S. C., master torts 103 Liability agént: S. willful E., 433; 31; C., 217; E., 908; C., 88 76 56 37 S. S. S. S. et Cas. Ins. Co. 195 Rite M'ann. Term, 1925 380; E., 40; 16 C., 439; 115 S. 106 159. S. S. Master 31; C., 433; principal 103 corporation: 88 S. S. 82 395; 873; S. 64 21 17 S. R. Cas., Ann. C., 620. communication: Privileged S. 241; 112 E\, 110. S. 14-A corporate Authority agent: C. J., 14-A. C. agent’s J., Evidence authority: 351; Question 773; C., 14-A. C. J., S. of fact E-, 267. S. Agent employment: E., 913; C., Ratification of agent’s aсts: 106 E., 1668; E., 23; S., 189 U. Ed., Verdict aside: erroneously set *3 E., 766.
Messrs. Benet, McGowan, defendants, cite: Shand Sou., Slander by not unauthorized and agent ratified: 210; 9 R. A. 3 Mo. R. App., Ratification: 503; 1912-C, 869; 851; Ann. Cas. 93 S. Tex., 1918-B, 151; W., 459; Cas., 651; 8 Ann. Cyс., Neg. No contractual relation with slandered: party Mass., authority: without Agent 86 N. 302. New: trial when one non- defendant suited Court: by Appellate 15, 1925. July by the Court was delivered oрinion
Watts. 1923,
This was an 5, action commenced March for dam- for slander uttered the ages defendants. The action was by 15, 1924, tried before Bonham a Judge jury Eebruray and resultеd in a $3,500. verdict for the plaintiff Sub- thereto, defendants, sequent motion counsel for the upon Court set aside the as verdict to defendant & Casualty Rife Tennessee, Insurance the set Company upon grounds forth herein below. From this order .the plaintiff appeals, defendant, Smith, and also the G. de- appeals. & Cas. Co. Ins. Lire M-ANn.
Opinion S. C. fendant, of Tennessee Company & Casualty from the refusal of the Circuit appeals Judge nonsuit and to direct a verdict. First, the
The three raise trial two exceptions points: erred in aside the as to 'the verdict Judgе setting that the the Insurance error being the second, and, evidence; that the verdict was supported there was in law to be that erred Judge construing defendant, thе Insurance no liability part entrusted had been Company, because its employee, Mann, left the in had Com- duty with no who regard Columbia, came unless before Smith pany’s employ acts, that there was evi- ratified Smith’s the incident had dence that the knowledge The Insurance exceptions the same. Company’s ratified in error nоt that his Honor was raise the questions asked for it. nonsuit, verdict as or directed of his the correctness question exceptions Smith’s trial as 1 Honor’s as to not granting ruling aсtion him with Insurance Company along satisfies us evidence in the case for a tort. The joint was slanderous that the remark of Smith was at employment. the was him the his *4 dischаrge called actual to the He was of the duty agents’ duty Company. speaking them due to the to collect the balances the Company, urging debits, on them with honеsty the various Company charging shows that loyalty testimony the Smith’s Company. in his the duty his address to the agents discharge was ad testimony to the shows Company. the the or debits betwеen or Company accounts justing and Mann. Hollingsworth
Mann left the of the emp^unent Company 2 made',, the time the slanderous remarks were
but he had a final had not settlement with the Com pany. Eipe 197
Mann. v. Cas. Ins. Co. Term, There was evidence to submit it their de- jury to the termination whether remarks were made about Smith’s Mann and there was some evidence of ratification to togo in jury. is still of the employment Company. There are on or his exceptions rulings Honor’s charge.
A master is liable uttered his slander servant if time at the the slander the uttering servant was in the his duties discharge intrusted to him in reference to the matter in hand particular Jenkins v. employment. Rail Railway v. C.), Hypes (S. road Company, Cas., Ann. 620. Nunnamaker v. v. Cor McCrory Lee Store
poration, Courtney American Express Company, R., 24 A. in
We see no error on the of his Honor not granting part or directed verdict nonsuit part trial as Insurance in not granting Smith. (cid:127) trial as to do think he was error new granting
We on the of Tennessee grounds & Casualty Company Eife did, decisions of this conflict with that he being Court. overruled, of the defendants are and the exceptions are sustained. The order of
plaintiff’s exceptions Judge Bonham a new trial as
is reversed. Gary Chiep and Messrs. Mr. Coth- Justice Justices Acting
ran and Marion, Associate concur. O. Purdy, por Rehearing On Petition *5 : Upon petition Insur- Mr. Cothran Justice I ance a have rehearing, this say: I think et Ins. Co. Mann. Cas.
Modifying Order C.— Watts, the statement in the of Mr. that opinion Justice “there was to the jury; some evidence of ratification to go is still in the of the should employment Company,” Smith of the law be stricken out as an incorrect appli- statement and unnecessary cable the facts of this case particular determination of the appeal. rule thе retention of
It is an harsh exceedingly a servant committed a tort within the scope who has the master after discovery employment, of such ratification mаster tort, is some evidence of the master of such It does not where tort. certainly apply there is In the case at bar has no of the tort. knowledge I for thаt reason do of such knowledge, evidence em in the think that the retention of Company’s not Smith slan of ratification of his alleged is ployment any der. for a a discloses petition rehearing misappre-
5 hension of the Court’s liability of position. based, for the slander is not
corporation upon the fact that was at the time some matter of business Mann in mat- between and the but corporation, ter of business between and the the in- corporation, In struction of subordinate under his agents supervision. this immaterial view of matter it was whether corpo- The above statement as to ration ratified slander not. was, therefore, the ratification dеtermina- unnecessary I adhere to my tion of the In other concur- respects appeal. be dismissed. and think that the should petition rence A hereto, the Court majority the modification agreeing is ordered. suggested Gary, Mr. Mr. Marion, Chief Justice Justice Acting O. concur. Purdy, Associate