Case Name: MANN v. LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF TENNESSEE ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1925-07-15
Citations: 132 S.C. 193
Docket Number: 11803
Parties: MANN v. LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF TENNESSEE ET AL.
Judges: Mr. Chiep Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Cothran and Marion, and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy, concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 193–198

Head Matter:
11803
MANN v. LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF TENNESSEE ET AL.
(129 S. E., 79)
Messrs. A. F. Spigner and D. W. Robinson, for plaintiff,
Messrs. Benet, Shand & McGowan, for defendants,
July 15, 1925.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This was an action commenced March 5, 1923, for damages for slander uttered by the defendants. The action was tried before Judge Bonham and a jury Eebruray 15, 1924, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $3,500. Subsequent thereto, upon motion of counsel for defendants, the Court set aside the verdict as to defendant Rife & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee, upon the grounds set forth herein below. From this order .the plaintiff appeals, and also the defendant, G. A. Smith, appeals. The de fendant, Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee appeals from the refusal of the Circuit Judge to grant a nonsuit and to direct a verdict.
The three exceptions raise two points: First, the trial Judge erred in setting aside the verdict as to 'the defendant, the Insurance Company, the alleged error being that the verdict was supported by the evidence; and, second, that the Judge erred in construing the law to be that there was no liability on the part of the defendant, the Insurance Company, because its employee, Smith, had been entrusted with no duty in regard to Mann, who had left the Company's employ before Smith came to Columbia, unless the Company ratified Smith's acts, and that there was no evidence that the Company had knowledge of the incident or had ratified the same. The Insurance Company's exceptions raise the questions that his Honor was in error in not granting a nonsuit, or directed verdict as asked for by it.
Smith's exceptions question the correctness of his Honor's ruling as to not granting a new trial as to him along with the Insurance Company as the action was for a joint tort. The evidence in the case satisfies us that the remark of Smith was slanderous and that Smith was acting in the scope of his employment. Smith was at the meeting called by him in the actual discharge of his duty to the Company. He was speaking of the agents' duty to the Company, urging them to collect the balances due the Company on the various debits, charging them with honesty and loyalty to the Company. Smith's testimony shows that his address to the agents was in the discharge of his duty to the Company. The testimony shows that Smith was adjusting the accounts or debits between the Company or Hollingsworth and Mann.
Mann had left the emp^unent of the Company at the time the alleged slanderous remarks were made',, but he had not had a final settlement with the Company.
There was evidence to submit it to the jury for their determination whether Smith's remarks were made about Mann and there was some evidence of ratification to go to the jury. Smith is still in the employment of the Company. There are no exceptions to rulings on evidence or his Honor's charge.
A master is liable for the slander uttered by his servant if at the time of uttering the slander the servant was engaged in the discharge of his duties intrusted to him in reference to the particular matter in hand and acting within the scope of his employment. Jenkins v. Railway Company (S. C.), 125 S. E., 912. Hypes v. Railroad Company, 82 S. C., 315; 64 S. E., 395; 21 L. R. A. (N. S.), 873; 17 Ann. Cas., 620. Nunnamaker v. Smith, 96 S. C., 294; 80 S. E., 465. Lee v. McCrory Store Corporation, 117 S. C., 236; 109 S. E., 111. Courtney v. American Express Company, 120 S. C., 511; 113 S. E., 332; 24 A. L. R., 128.
We see no error on the part of his Honor in not granting a nonsuit or directed verdict on the part of the defendant, Insurance Company, or in not granting a new trial as to Smith.
We do think he was in error in granting a new trial as to • Eife & Casualty Company of Tennessee on the grounds that he did, as being in conflict with the decisions of this Court.
The exceptions of the defendants are overruled, and the plaintiff's exceptions are sustained. The order of Judge Bonham granting a new trial as to the Insurance Company is reversed.
Mr. Chiep Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Cothran and Marion, and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy, concur.