Stanley v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stanley v. Moore

173 S.E. 190, 48 Ga. App. 704, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 167

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 3, 1934

Docket23270

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 173 S.E. 190 (Stanley v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stanley v. Moore, 173 S.E. 190, 48 Ga. App. 704, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 167 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Where a person says to another, of a young woman who had. visited him in his office alone on a business errand, that she, while in his office, did not act like a “lady,” and this was said to her employer, [705]*705and Concerning her conduct in the transaction of the business for which she was employed, after she had gone to the office of the person who made this remark about her, and on account thereof she lost her job, they were made of her in reference to her trade or profession, and were calculated to injure her therein. Where the charge was false and she had done nothing to justify it, it amounted to slander for which an action in damages lies as provided in the third division of section 4433 of the Civil Code of 1910.

Decided March 3, 1934. Carpenter & Bilis, for plaintiff. Bryan, Middlebroolcs & Carter, for defendant.

2. The court erred in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stephens, J.

1. Where a person says to another, of a young woman who had. visited him in his office alone on a business errand, that she, while in his office, did not act like a “lady,” and this was said to her employer, [705]*705and Concerning her conduct in the transaction of the business for which she was employed, after she had gone to the office of the person who made this remark about her, and on account thereof she lost her job, they were made of her in reference to her trade or profession, and were calculated to injure her therein. Where the charge was false and she had done nothing to justify it, it amounted to slander for which an action in damages lies as provided in the third division of section 4433 of the Civil Code of 1910.

Decided March 3, 1934. Carpenter & Bilis, for plaintiff. Bryan, Middlebroolcs & Carter, for defendant.

2. The court erred in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.E. 190, 48 Ga. App. 704, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-moore-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

2. The court erred in granting a nonsuit.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack