Case ID: ga-app_25/html/0382-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11234.
    Clover Leaf Casualty Co. et al. v. National Life Insurance Company.
    Decided June 15, 1920.
    Action for damages; from Fnlton superior court — Judge Bell. October 25, 1919.
    The National Life Insurance Company of the United States of America sued the Clover Leaf Casualty Company, George W. Cooper, and J. E. Ashley for damages, alleging that the defendants conspired together to persuade and did persuade and cause certain agents of the plaintiff to break their contracts of employment with the plaintiff and leave its service for the service of the defendant company. Ashley died and was stricken as a party defendant. The trial of the case resulted in a verdict against the other defendants, their motion for a new trial was overruled, and they excepted.
    Paragraph 3 of the foregoing decision relates to testimony of PI. C. Iietterer as to certain conversations and transactions witli Ashley, to which the defendants objected on the grounds that the conversations and transactions were solely between a deceased agent of the defendant company and an agent of the plaintiff, and that the statements made and advice given to Ashley by the witness, who was an agent of the plaintiff, could not bind the defendants, being made without their knowledge, and were prejudicial to the rights of the defendants and tended to mislead and confuse the jury. The witness stated that in these conversations Ashley exhibited his contract of employment with the Glover Leaf Casualty Company and told of his employing the agents and “working on the men,” and of the commissions to be paid, and discussed methods of getting men away from the National Life Insurance Company.
   Bloodworth, J.

1. When the charge of the court as given is considered in its entirety and in connection with all the facts of the case, there is no reversible error in any of the excerpts therefrom of which complaint is made.

2. The requests to charge, so far as legal and pertinent, were covered by the charge given.

3. The court did not err in admitting the evidence of .which complaint is made in the 8th ground of the motion for new trial.

4. There was evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Dorsey, Shelton & Dorsey, G. L. Bynum, for plaintiffs in error.

Moore & Pomeroy, contra.