From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Teng v. Saha

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 4, 1985
477 So. 2d 378 (Ala. 1985)

Summary

holding that an action for tortious interference with business relations is an action for trespass on the case

Summary of this case from Cagle v. Rubley

Opinion

84-317.

October 4, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Madison County, Daniel B. Banks, Jr., J.

Raymond Uhrig, Huntsville, for appellant.

Frederick L. Fohrell and Roscoe Roberts, Jr. of Watts, Salmon, Roberts, Manning Noojin, Huntsville, for appellee.


This appeal arises out of a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Hrishikesh Saha, and against plaintiff, Lincoln Teng, in Teng's action for interference with an employment relationship. Several issues are raised on appeal, but we only need address the statute of limitations issue to decide the case.

Saha argues that Teng's action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations, Code 1975, § 6-2-39 (5). Teng argues that the action is governed by the six-year statute of limitations, Code 1975, § 6-2-34 (2). The resolution of this issue depends upon whether the wrongful act alleged gives rise to an action in trespass or trespass on the case. Sasser v. Dixon, 290 Ala. 17, 273 So.2d 182 (1973). In Sparks v. McCreary, 156 Ala. 382, 47 So. 332 (1908), the Court held that an action for wrongful interference with business relationships was in case. The Court reached that conclusion because the wrongful conduct of the defendant did not involve "actual or constructive assumption of possession [of the property of another] or force in any form [and] was, on the averments, purely consequential in the damnifying consequence alleged to have resulted therefrom." Id., 156 Ala. at 386, 47 So. at 334. Teng alleged that Saha contacted Teng's supervisors and attempted to have Teng fired. Saha's alleged wrongful conduct is analogous to the conduct of the defendant in Sparks. Therefore, the action is in case, and § 6-2-39 (5) controls. Because the complaint was filed more than one year after the cause of action accrued, the action is time barred, and summary judgment was appropriate.

AFFIRMED.

MADDOX, FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

ADAMS, J., dissents.


Summaries of

Teng v. Saha

Supreme Court of Alabama
Oct 4, 1985
477 So. 2d 378 (Ala. 1985)

holding that an action for tortious interference with business relations is an action for trespass on the case

Summary of this case from Cagle v. Rubley
Case details for

Teng v. Saha

Case Details

Full title:Lincoln TENG v. Hrishikesh SAHA

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Oct 4, 1985

Citations

477 So. 2d 378 (Ala. 1985)

Citing Cases

Lovell v. Acrea

See Sasser, supra. The allegations in this case are analogous to those in Teng v. Saha, 477 So.2d 378 (Ala.…

Larkin v. Pullman-Standard Div., Pullman

Pullman insists that the one-year statute, section 6-2-39(a)(5), applies. The company likens this employment…