Kingsbury v. Bradstreet Co.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1889 |
| Citation | 116 N.Y. 211,22 N.E. 365 |
| Parties | KINGSBURY v. BRADSTREET CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the supreme court in the fifth judicial department denying a motion for a new trial, and directing judgment for the defendant upon a verdict rendered at circuit under direction of the court. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was a commission and grocery merchant, doing a large business, and enjoying good credit as a business man, when the defendant, a corporation engaged in conducting a mercantile agency, maliciously published, printed, and circulated among its customers a circular containing the following false and defamatory matter, referring to the plaintiff: ‘Canandaigua, Kingsbury, Sherman,-Gro.-**;’ that the defendant thereby meant that its customers should understand that he ‘in some way or manner had become financially embarrassed in his business, and that his credit and good name as a merchant had become affected or impaired, and especially * * * that he had failed in business, or had made a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors;’ that his business depended on his good reputation and credit; that he had not failed, nor made an assignment; and that by means of the premises he was injured in his reputation, good name, and credit. The defendant, in its answer, admitted its corporate character, the nature of its business, and that it did publish, print, and send to its subscribers in certain counties, but to no one else, a circular known as its ‘Sheet of Changes and Corrections,’ wherein, referring to the plaintiff, occurred the alleged libelous matter set forth in the complaint; but it denied that such publication was falsely or maliciously made, or that it thereby intended to do any injury to the plaintiff. The answer also contained a general denial of allegations not admitted, and alleged that said publication was sent in confidence to subscribers only, pursuant to written contracts with them requiring the defendant to seek for and furnish any report of change in the financial standing, or otherwise, of merchants; that at the bottom of said circular was an explanation of what the characters in question meant, in these words: ‘* * For explanation, please call at our office;’ that all the meaning that it intended to convey to its subscribers, or that they understood it to convey, was that it had certain confidential information concerning the plaintiff which it would confidentially, and by word of mouth, convey to such of them as were directly interested in him, providing they would call at its office, and make personal inquiry therefor. The publication in question, as read in evidence upon the trial, was headed Then followed various lists of names of persons, with their residences and business appended, classified by states, and opposite each name were certain figures or characters. Those under the head of ‘New York’ were as follows:
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦Middleport ¦James Ed ¦Gro 83 ¦$166 46¦
+---------------+-----------------+----------+-------¦
¦Mortons Corners¦Schroeder H N ¦G S ¦44 ¦
+---------------+-----------------+----------+-------¦
¦Lockport ¦Lambert Jno ¦Flour &c ¦** ¦
+---------------+-----------------+----------+-------¦
¦Buffalo ¦Beach E W & I ¦Printer 83¦$142 ¦
+---------------+-----------------+----------+-------¦
¦“ ¦Taylor Rich'd ¦Hotel ¦60 ¦
+---------------+-----------------+----------+-------¦
¦Canandaigua ¦Kingsbury Sherman¦Gro ¦** ¦
+---------------+-----------------+----------+-------¦
¦“ ¦Skidmore Thomas ¦B & S ¦** ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
At the bottom of the page upon which the foregoing appeared was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Julian v. American Business Consultants, Inc.
...v. Andrews, 6 Barb. 43; Matthews v. Beach, 5 Sandf. 256; Hunt v. Bennett, 19 N.Y. 173; Lewis v. Chapman, 16 N.Y. 369; Kingsbury v. Bradstreet Co., 116 N.Y. 211, 22 N.E. 365.' The indispensable proof is lacking. The alleged libelous material upon a fair reading and evaluation has not been sh......
-
Bohlinger v. Germania Life Insurance Company
...the court acted within its province. 25 Cyc. 547; 164 Mo. 289; 93 S.W. 1033; 103 S.W. 374; 83 Ky. 375; 121 Mich. 536; 121 N.Y. 203; 116 N.Y. 211; Townshend, Slander and Libel, § OPINION FRAUENTHAL, J. This was an action instituted by A. Bohlinger to recover damages for the alleged publicati......
-
Yesner v. Spinner
...actionable without any proof of special damages (see, e.g., Moore v. Francis, 121 N.Y. 199, 23 N.E. 1127 1890; Kingsbury v. The Bradstreet Co., 116 N.Y. 211, 22 N.E. 365 1889). At common law, it was not necessary for a private plaintiff to plead or prove special damages with respect to a li......
-
Brown v. Du Frey
...Matthews v. Beach (7 N.Y.Super.Ct. 256), 5 Sandf. 256; Hunt v. Bennett, 19 N.Y. 173; Lewis v. Chapman, 16 N.Y. 369; Kingsbury v. Bradstreet Co., 116 N.Y. 211, 22 N.E. 365.' (Emphasis supplied.) In resolving this question of law in favor of plaintiff we have been guided by the thoughts expre......