Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Graham

15 Citing cases

  1. Sumner Stores of Miss., Inc., v. Little

    192 So. 857 (Miss. 1940)   Cited 26 times

    The defendant was entitled to a peremptory instruction because the alleged slander was uttered on a qualifiedly privileged occasion and there was no showing of actual malice on the part of this defendant. Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Graham, 181 Miss. 549, 179 So. 341; La. Oil Corp. v. Renno, 173 Miss. 609, 157 So. 705; Scott-Burr Stores v. Edgar, 181 Miss. 486, 177 So. 766, 165 So. 623; Mo. Pac. Trans. Co. v. Beard, 179 Miss. 764, 176 So. 156; Great A. P. Tea Co. v. Majure, 176 Miss. 356, 167 So. 637, 168 So. 468; I.C.R.R. Co. v. Wales, 177 Miss. 875, 171 So. 536; Gardner v. Standard Oil Co., 179 Miss. 176, 175 So. 203; Kroger Grocery Baking Co. v. Harpole, 175 Miss. 227, 166 So. 335. Malice is distinguishable from negligence in that it arises from some purpose, while negligence arises from the absence of purpose.

  2. Montgomery Ward Co. v. Skinner

    200 Miss. 44 (Miss. 1946)   Cited 64 times
    In Montgomery Ward Co. v. Skinner, 25 So.2d 572 (Miss. 1946), the Mississippi Supreme Court noted that "it is incumbent upon a plaintiff seeking compensation for a libel or slander to show that the statement complained of was made with reference to him, but as stated in 33 Am.Jur. 243, § 263, 'He may discharge this burden by proof of relevant circumstances'...."

    But if it be held that a qualified privilege existed, the privilege was exceeded. Valley Dry Goods Co. v. Buford, 114 Miss. 414, 75 So. 252; Louisiana Oil Corporation v. Renno, 173 Miss. 609, 157 So. 705; The Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Majure, 176 Miss. 356, 167 So. 637; Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Graham, 181 Miss. 549, 179 So. 341; Grantham v. Wilkes, 135 Miss. 777, 100 So. 673; Scott-Burr Stores Corporation v. Edgar, supra; Switzer v. American Ry. Express Co., 119 S.C. 237, 112 S.E. 110, 26 A.L.R. 819. Punitive damages were allowable and the verdict was not excessive.

  3. Henry v. Collins

    253 Miss. 34 (Miss. 1963)   Cited 13 times

    V. Malice in fact was established in this case. Kroger Grocery Baking Co. v. Harpole, 175 Miss. 227, 166 So. 335; Reliance Manufacturing Co. v. Graham, 181 Miss. 549, 179 So. 341; Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Edgar, 181 Miss. 486, 177 So. 766. VI. Since the jury was warranted in finding that appellee was defamed maliciously, an award of punitive damages was proper.

  4. J. C. Penney Co. v. Cox

    246 Miss. 1 (Miss. 1963)   Cited 26 times
    In J.C. Penney Co., Inc. v. Cox, 246 Miss. 1, 148 So.2d 679 (1963), there was no evidence that any person had seen the plaintiff take articles in the store, and the only testimony was to the effect that it was suspected that she had taken something. Under such suspicion, the manager stopped her and searched her purse.

    Even if the appellant were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and even if the instructions were not erroneous so as to require reversal, still the cause should be reversed because the verdict was excessive. Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Graham, 181 Miss. 549, 179 So. 341; Wells v. Branscome, 222 Miss. 1, 74 So.2d 743. Howard L. Patterson, Jr., Francis T. Zachary, Hattiesburg, for appellee.

  5. Miley v. Foster

    90 So. 2d 172 (Miss. 1956)   Cited 4 times

    VI. The Court erred in granting to the defendant instructions on the question of privileged communication. Farley v. Bufkin, 159 Miss. 350, 355, 132 So. 86; Great Atlantic, Pacific Tea Co. v. Majure, 176 Miss. 356, 167 So. 637, 638; Krebs v. McNeal, 222 Miss. 560, 76 So.2d 693, 699; Kroger Groc. Baking Co. v. Harpole, 175 Miss. 227, 238, 166 So. 335; Louisiana Oil Corp. v. Renno, 173 Miss. 609, 157 So. 705, 708; Missouri Pac. Transp. Co. v. Beard, 179 Miss. 764, 176 So. 156, 159; Montgomery Ward Co. v. Skinner, 200 Miss. 44, 25 So.2d 572, 577; Natchez Times Pub. Co. v. Dunigan, 221 Miss. 320, 72 So.2d 681; Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Graham, 181 Miss. 549, 179 So. 341; Sumner Stores of Miss. v. Little, 187 Miss. 310, 192 So. 857; Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Edgar, 181 Miss. 486, 177 So. 766; Sheffield v. Journal Pub. Co., 211 Miss. 294, 51 So.2d 479, 481. VII.

  6. Mississippi Power Co. v. Russell

    377 So. 2d 595 (Miss. 1979)   Cited 1 times

    1967), Mrs. Garner, a customer in the drug store, was accused by the appellant there of taking a bar of soap. A verdict of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) was held not to be excessive. See also Sumner Stores of Mississippi v. Little, 187 Miss. 310, 192 So. 857 (1940); Reliance Manufacturing Co. v. Graham, 181 Miss. 549, 179 So. 341 (1938); and Kroger Grocery and Baking Co. v. Harpole, 175 Miss. 227, 166 So. 335 (1936), where verdicts for slander (theft) were held not to be excessive. After examining the evidence with reference to damages sustained by the appellee, we cannot say that the trial judge manifestly abused his discretion in overruling the motion for a new trial on the issue of damages only and in declining to enter a remittitur.

  7. Henry v. Pearson

    253 Miss. 62 (Miss. 1963)   Cited 5 times
    In Henry v. Pearson, 253 Miss. 62, 158 So.2d 695, rev'd on other grounds, 380 U.S. 356, 85 S.Ct. 992, 13 L.Ed.2d 892 (1965), we held that a juror was not disqualified merely because he knew plaintiff's counsel and such counsel was at the time of trial representing juror's company in other litigation.

    V. Malice in fact was established in this case. Kroger Grocery Baking Co. v. Harpole, 175 Miss. 227, 166 So. 335; Reliance Manufacturing Co. v. Graham, 181 Miss. 549, 179 So. 341; Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Edgar, 181 Miss. 486, 177 So. 766. VI. Since the jury was warranted in finding that appellee was defamed maliciously, an award of punitive damages was proper.

  8. Smith v. Byrd

    83 So. 2d 172 (Miss. 1955)   Cited 10 times

    XI. The amount of the verdict was excessive and demonstrated prejudice on the part of the jury; and on the issue of damages, the Court erred in instructing the jury that the law implied or presumed a malicious intent. Gulf, M. N. RR. Co. v. Graham, 151 Miss. 351, 117 So. 881; Hines v. Shumaker, 97 Miss. 669, 52 So. 705; Interstate Co. v. Garnett, 154 Miss. 325, 122 So. 373; Krebs v. McNeal, 222 Miss. 560, 76 So.2d 693; Kroger Groc. Baking Co. v. Harpole, 175 Miss. 227, 166 So. 335; Landrum v. Ellington, 152 Miss. 569, 120 So. 444; Montgomery Ward Co. v. Blakely, 200 Miss. 81, 25 So.2d 585; Montgomery Ward Co. v. Harland, supra; Montgomery Ward Co. v. Skinner, supra; Natchez Times Publishing Co. v. Dunigan, supra; New Orleans Great Northern RR. Co. v. Frazer, 158 Miss. 407, 130 So. 493; Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Graham, 181 Miss. 549, 179 So. 341; Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Edgar, supra; Sumner Stores v. Little, 187 Miss. 696, 192 So. 857; Sec. 13, Constitution 1890; Vol. II, Alexander's Miss. Jury Instructions, Sec. 3761. King King, Durant, for appellee.

  9. Tipps Tool Co., et al. v. Holifield

    67 So. 2d 609 (Miss. 1953)   Cited 14 times
    In Holifield, where the appellee was accused of stealing from his employer, the judgment in his favor was reversed because the jury was not properly instructed on the element of malice he was required to prove in light of his former employer's qualified privilege.

    Cited and discussed the following: Fraizier v. McCloskey, 60 N.Y. 337, 19 Am. Rep. 193; Ferriday v. Selser, 4 How. 506, 519; Interstate Co. v. Garnett, 154 Miss. 326, 122 So. 373; Kroger Groc. Baking Co. v. Harpole, 175 Miss. 227, 166 So. 335, 339-340; Louisiana Oil Corp. v. Renno, 173 Miss. 609, 157 So. 705; McGowan v. The State, 9 Yerger 184; Montgomery Ward Co. v. Skinner, 200 Miss. 44, 25 So.2d 572; Reliance Manufacturing Co. v. Graham, 81 Miss. 549, 179 So. 341; Scott-Burr Stores Corp. v. Edgar, 181 Miss. 486, 177 So. 766; Sumner Stores of Miss. v. Little, 187 Miss. 310, 192 So. 857; Sec. 1526, Code 1942; 12 A.L.R. 1026; 86 A.L.R. 1297; 33 Am. Jur., Sec. 269 p. 253; Newell on Slander and Libel, 4th Ed., Sec. 287. KYLE, J.

  10. Combes v. Montgomery Ward Co.

    119 Utah 407 (Utah 1951)   Cited 28 times
    Relying on authority requiring the employer to have "`an honest belief in the truth of the statement'" (quoting Harrison v. Garrett, 132 N.C. 172, 43 S.E. 594, 596 (1903))

    " See also: Hall v. Rice, 117 Neb. 813, 223 N.W. 4, 78 A.L.R. 1421; McKenna v. Mansfield Leland Hotel Co., 55 Ohio App. 163, 9 N.E.2d 166; Campbell v. Willmark Service System, Inc., 3 Cir., 123 F.2d 204; Reliance Mfg. Co. v. Graham, 181 Miss. 549, 179 So. 341; Johnson v. Rudolph Wurlitzer Co., 197 Wis. 432, 222 N.W. 451; and Hearn v. Ostrander, 194 N.C. 753, 140 S.E. 724. From the foregoing discussion of the facts and the law, it is plain that the questioning was done under conditional privilege.