Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    John Walden, Jr. v. Petroleum Transit Company, Inc. and J. H. Burton, 361 F.2d 309, 4th Cir. (1966)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a judgment for the plaintiff in a case involving a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff's employer. The court found that the letter was a qualifiedly privileged communication because it was written by the defendant to the plaintiff's employer. As there was no evidence of malice presented, the letter could not be the basis for recovery. The court ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    John Walden, Jr. v. Petroleum Transit Company, Inc. and J. H. Burton, 361 F.2d 309, 4th Cir. (1966)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views1 page
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a judgment for the plaintiff in a case involving a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff's employer. The court found that the letter was a qualifiedly privileged communication because it was written by the defendant to the plaintiff's employer. As there was no evidence of malice presented, the letter could not be the basis for recovery. The court ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1966-05-02 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 361 F.2d 309 Docket: 10308_1

    Original Title

    John Walden, Jr. v. Petroleum Transit Company, Inc. And J. H. Burton, 361 F.2d 309, 4th Cir. (1966)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a judgment for the plaintiff in a case involving a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff's employer. The court found that the letter was a qualifiedly privileged communication because it was written by the defendant to the plaintiff's employer. As there was no evidence of malice presented, the letter could not be the basis for recovery. The court ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views1 page

    John Walden, Jr. v. Petroleum Transit Company, Inc. and J. H. Burton, 361 F.2d 309, 4th Cir. (1966)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a judgment for the plaintiff in a case involving a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff's employer. The court found that the letter was a qualifiedly privileged communication because it was written by the defendant to the plaintiff's employer. As there was no evidence of malice presented, the letter could not be the basis for recovery. The court ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    361 F.

    2d 309

    John WALDEN, Jr., Appellee,


    v.
    PETROLEUM TRANSIT COMPANY, Inc. and J. H. Burton,
    Appellants.
    No. 10308.

    United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.


    Argued April 8, 1966.
    Decided May 2, 1966.

    Sam'l J. T. Moore, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Calvin F. Major, and Shewmake,


    Gary, Goddin, Blackwell, Elmore & Belcher, Richmond, Va., on brief),
    for appellants.
    Arthur M. Baugh, Richmond, Va., on brief for appellee.
    Before SOBELOFF, BRYAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Upon consideration of the record, we are fully persuaded that the letter
    complained of, written by defendant to plaintiff's employer, was a qualifiedly
    privileged communication. As there was no evidence of malice, it cannot be the
    basis of a recovery. We are therefore obliged to reverse the judgment for the
    plaintiff and order judgment to be entered in favor of the defendant.

    Reversed.

    You might also like