Title: Cranford v. Shelton
Citation: 378 So. 2d 652
Docket Number: 51595
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: January 9, 1980

378 So. 2d 652 (1980) Thomas E. CRANFORD v. D. Mike SHELTON and Rose A. Shelton. No. 51595. Supreme Court of Mississippi. January 9, 1980. Dudley W. Conner, Hattiesburg, for appellant. J. Murray Akers, Frank Carlton, Greenville, for appellee. Before ROBERTSON, LEE and BOWLING, JJ. *653 BOWLING, Justice, for the Court: This appeal is from the Circuit Court of Forrest County. Appellees (plaintiffs below) received a jury verdict and resulting judgment against appellant (defendant below) for the total sum of $28,316.74 $20,816.74 actual damages, and $7,500, punitive damages. The basis of the suit was that appellant violated the law by enticing a tenant to move from appellees' building prior to the expiration of the rental period. The declaration filed by appellees charged that appellant violated the terms of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-29 (1972). This statute reads as follows: In charging a violation of the above statute, appellees alleged that on August 30, 1974, Shelton Motors, Inc. (solely owned by appellees) entered into a lease contract with Hub City Motors, Inc., whereby the latter was to operate an automobile dealership on the premises under a thirty-six month lease contract for a monthly rental. The lease was assigned to appellees by the corporation. The declaration charges that in violating the terms of the said statute, appellant, along with two others, owned a building and that appellant set out intentionally to entice appellees' lessee to leave appellees' premises and move to the building partially owned by appellant. The declaration further alleged that as an inducement to Hub City Motors, Inc., to violate the terms of its lease agreement, appellant offered free rental for a period of three months. It was further alleged that appellant, who was a senior vice-president of a local bank, offered to arrange certain financing through the bank on behalf of Hub City Motors, Inc., and offered to make certain adjustments in inventory to assist the prospective lessee in securing a Small Business Administration loan through appellant's bank. Appellees then reiterated the charge of violation of the above quoted statute, and asked for actual and punitive damages for the alleged violation. Appellant's answer consisted of a general denial of all material allegations of the declaration. Appellant advances several assignments of error. We shall not discuss each separately as the decision of this unusual case hinges on procedure as it is applied to the evidence. Our first observation is that it is extremely doubtful that the statute in question applies to the cause of action propounded by appellees. The statute first appeared in the Mississippi Code of 1892. A reading thereof immediately indicates that it was passed by the legislature for the purpose of protecting the then "farmer-sharecropper" situation. Research reveals that other states enacted similar legislation about the same time. Cases were decided by the courts of those states but the statute has been repealed by all except Mississippi. For some reason, either intentionally or by oversight, our legislature has not repealed the statute. Assuming the doubtfulness of the applicability of the statute to the complaint against appellant, we next need to look at the cause in the light of the pleadings and the evidence. We will not recite the evidence in detail but find without hesitation that appellees presented evidence sufficient for the jury to find that appellant intentionally and wilfully sought to and did entice appellees' lessee from appellees' building prior to the expiration of the lease period. We are now faced with a decision as to whether or not the declaration, the entire trial, including motions and instructions to the jury, should be set aside because of the doubtful application of the statute in question. At the threshold we are faced with the obvious assumption by all parties that the statute applied. There was no preliminary procedure contesting that issue. All of the evidence was introduced without any objection from any party contending that the statute did not apply. The instructions were directed toward a violation of the statute. With this situation, we next determine whether or not the declaration was sufficient to charge a common-law violation, as well as a statutory violation, so as to approve the procedure and the resulting verdict. *655 Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-7-35 (1972) provides: In researching the cases decided under this statute, it is our opinion that sufficient charges were set out in the declaration to state a cause of action under common law liability for wilfully interfering with a contract. Even though, as hereinbefore explained, the case was tried under the statute by the parties, there clearly is a common law duty on every person, firm or corporation not to interfere with a person's contract with another. The common law liability was set out distinctly by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Ramando v. Pure Oil Co., 159 Pa. Super. 217, 48 A.2d 156 (1946), where the Court said the following: In 52A C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant section 830, the common law is announced as follows: Mississippi has followed the common law restriction on interference with contracts in the recent case of Southwest Drug Company v. Howard Bros. Pharmacy, 320 So. 2d 776 (Miss. 1975). This Court said: Therefore, we are forced to the conclusion that the declaration, even though intended to be based primarily on a breach of statute, sets out sufficient allegations to charge a cause of action under the common law principles heretofore stated. Furthermore, the jury had ample evidence on which to find that appellant breached either the statutory or common law prohibitions. The cause should therefore be affirmed as to the actual damage provisions of the judgment. These damages consisted solely of the loss of rent between the time the enticed lessees stopped paying appellees the monthly rental and the date the building was subsequently sold by lessees. We turn now to the question of allowing punitive damages. As we have seen, the parties intended to try the case under an alleged breach of Code section 97-23-29. The instructions of all parties were drawn and presented in that direction. A study of the statute reveals that in addition to a fine of between twenty-five and *656 one hundred dollars, the employer or landlord shall recover "all advances made by him to said renter or laborer by virtue of his contract with said renter or laborer, and for all damages which he may have sustained by reason thereof." (Emphasis supplied). It is readily seen, therefore, that a breach of the statute does not authorize punitive damages, but actual damages only. Even though we have discussed the common law principle involved and hold that the declaration and evidence were sufficient to include such a cause of action, the parties have confined the recovery to the damages allowed by the statute. We therefore hold that the verdict for punitive damages cannot stand. The case is affirmed and modified, and judgment is entered here for the actual loss of rent sustained by appellees in the sum of $20,816.74. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and COFER, JJ., concur.