Moorhead v. Curtis Pub. Co.

Decision Date22 January 1942
Docket NumberNo. 364.,364.
Citation43 F. Supp. 67
PartiesMOORHEAD v. CURTIS PUB. CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky

William S. Heidenberg, of Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff.

Doolan, Helm, Stites & Wood, of Louisville, Ky., for defendant.

MILLER, District Judge.

This action is before the Court on the defendant's motion to quash the service of summons herein, and the return of such service.

The plaintiff William C. Moorhead filed this action in the Jefferson Circuit Court at Louisville, Kentucky, against the defendant The Curtis Publishing Company for $10,000 compensatory damages and an additional sum of $10,000 as punitive damages by reason of an alleged libel published in the September 14, 1940, issue of The Saturday Evening Post, a weekly periodical published by the defendant with wide circulation throughout the United States. The article complained of was entitled "Armageddon, Inc. by Stanley High", which dealt with an attack on an organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses. The plaintiff alleges that in connection with and as a part of the article the defendant published photographs of various members of Jehovah's Witnesses, and among the photographs so published was a photograph of the plaintiff together with members of his family with the following words in large type beneath it, namely: "`WITNESSES LOOK LIKE AVERAGE AMERICANS—AS, IN FACT, THEY ARE.' A typical Louisville family of Witnesses." Plaintiff states that he has never been affiliated with the organization known as "Jehovah's Witnesses" and that the statement published under his photograph was false and subjected him to great humiliation and embarrassment and damage to his reputation. Four other similar actions were filed at the same time by Ethel Moorhead, his wife, and by three infant children, suing by their next friend. Summons was served "on The Curtis Publishing Company by delivering a copy of the within summons on G. A. Slemmons, Dis't Mgr., he being the Chief Officer found in this County at this time." The defendant removed all five of the actions to the United States District Court by proper proceedings and then entered in each case the motion now under consideration. Affidavits and exhibits were filed by both plaintiff and defendant in this action under an agreement that they would be considered as part of the record in each case.

The affidavits show that the defendant The Curtis Publishing Company is a Pennsylvania corporation with its chief office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; that it owns and publishes The Saturday Evening Post referred to in plaintiff's petition as well as other magazines and publications; that it owns the entire capital stock of a subsidiary corporation by the name of Curtis Publishing Company which is a Delaware corporation with its principal office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and which is engaged in selling and distributing in many states throughout the country including Kentucky The Saturday Evening Post and other publications of the Pennsylvania Company, and also about forty other magazines of National circulation and prominence, published by other publishing houses; and that the directors and officers of the Pennsylvania corporation and the Delaware corporation are the same, although no other employee of either company is an employee of the other company. G. A. Slemmons who was the individual served with the summons was employed by the Delaware corporation as its district manager in Louisville, Kentucky, and was the designated agent for service of process of that corporation in Kentucky, but he was not employed by and had no connection with the defendant The Curtis Publishing Company, the Pennsylvania Corporation. Both corporations have offices in a building in Philadelphia owned by the Pennsylvania Company, but these offices are separate and the Delaware Company pays to the Pennsylvania Company a fair and reasonable rent for the quarters thus occupied. The Pennsylvania Company maintains its editorial and publishing staffs, publishes the magazines referred to and mails them to its subscribers from its office in Philadelphia. In addition to its subscribers there is a demand throughout the country for the purchase, both wholesale and retail of its various magazines, and in order to meet this demand the Pennsylvania company organized the Delaware company to which it sells and delivers in Philadelphia its magazines which are to be distributed by the Delaware company throughout the other states where the magazines are sold. The Delaware company has qualified to do business in the state of Kentucky, but the Pennsylvania company has not. Each company engages exclusively in its own type of enterprise, maintains its own separate records and books of account and makes its own separate returns for taxation of their respective incomes and properties. Each company is separately served and managed by its own directors, officers and employees who are paid separate salaries by each company for the services rendered to that company. Where any service is rendered by one company to the other a full and fair charge for that service is made to the company thus served by the company which renders the service and makes the charge therefor. Any subscriptions solicited or received by the Delaware company for the publications of the Pennsylvania company are forwarded to the Pennsylvania Company's office and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Insull v. New York World-Telegram Corporation, 58 C 108
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • April 8, 1959
    ...1939, 70 App.D.C. 165, 105 F.2d 44; Brewster v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., D.C.Me.1956, 141 F.Supp. 760; Moorhead v. Curtis Publishing Co., D.C.W.D.Ky.1942, 43 F.Supp. 67. In Cannon v. Time, Inc., supra, the defendant printed its publications in Illinois and shipped them by carrier to an......
  • Botwinick v. Credit Exchange, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • September 29, 1965
    ...111 F.Supp. 342. Neither the similarity of names between the parent and subsidiary corporation (Moorhead v. Curtis Publishing Co., D.C., 43 F.Supp. 67), nor the total ownership of the stock of the subsidiary by the parent (Cannon, supra; Moorhead, supra; Technograph Page 354 Printed Circuit......
  • Scalise v. Beech Aircraft Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • October 25, 1967
    ...Inc., 419 Pa. 65, 213 A.2d 349 (1965), nor the similarity of names between the parent and the subsidiary, Moorehead v. Curtis Publishing Co., 43 F.Supp. 67 (W.D. Kentucky 1942), nor the identity of the officers and directors of the subsidiary and the parent, Electrosonics International, Inc......
  • Vitro Electronics, Division of Vitro Corp. of America v. Milgray Electronics, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • November 10, 1969
    ...doing business in the state. See Rucker v. Personal Finance Co., 86 Ohio App. 110, 90 N.E.2d 428 (Ohio 1948); Moorhead v. Curtis Publ. Co., 43 F.Supp. 67 (D.Ky.1942); Garber v. Bancamerica-Blair Corp., 205 Minn. 275, 285 N.W. 723 (1939); Consolidated Textile Corp. v. Gregory, 289 U.S. 85, 5......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT