Henry v. Pittsb. Etc. R.

Citations

• 139 Pa. 289
• 27 W.N.C. 322
• 21 A. 157
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 990

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. Unless restrained by contract, a corporation or an individual may suspend or discharge an employee, at pleasure, with or without cause; and the fact that the employee’s reputation is affected by unfavorable inferences drawn from the suspension, or discharge, itself, will not render the employer liable in damages.</p> <p>2. A railroad company is not responsible, under the rule of respondeat ouster, for a libel of an employee published by its general superintendent without authority from the corporation; nor, is the superintendent himself responsible, when there is no evidence submitted that the libelous article was dictated, or even inspired by him.</p> <p>3. In this case, even if the superintendent had furnished all the information contained in the publication, as imputed to him by the plaintiff, he would not thereby be responsible for the libel, in the absence of proof submitted that he went one step further, and procured its publication.</p>