Achorn & Co. v. Piper
Decision Date | 22 September 1885 |
Citation | 24 N.W. 513,66 Iowa 694 |
Parties | ACHORN & Co. ET AL v. PIPER |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from O'Brien District Court.
ACTION to recover damages for a libel. There was a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.
REVERSED.
Alfred Morton and F. H. Nash, for appellant.
Dunn, Bullis & Bailey, for appellees.
I. The alleged libelous publication, which is the foundation of the action, charges substantially that plaintiffs, who are dealers in and purchasers of grain, combined to reduce the price of grain, one of the plaintiffs purchasing one day and another the next, and so on, and that the price of grain at the town where plaintiffs were doing business was less than at the other neighboring towns. There is no allegation of special damages in the petition, and none were proved.
II. It is very plain that the language of the publication is not actionable per se, as it does not imply charges of acts which would tend to provoke plaintiffs to wrath, or expose them to public hatred or ridicule, or deprive them of the benefits of public confidence and social intercourse. Code, § 4097. It is not an uncommon thing for dealers engaged in the same business to fix prices by agreement, and, adhering thereto, thus to control the market as to the price at which goods are bought and sold; and such agreements sometimes control the quantities purchased and the time of purchasing by the different parties thereto. According to the customs of trade, such a course of business does not bring those engaged in it into public hatred or ridicule. We are clearly of the opinion that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages unless they are specifically proved, and that the law will not presume that plaintiffs suffered injury in the absence of such proof.
This conclusion is in harmony with familiar rules of the law. But the district court in its instructions held that plaintiffs could recover, though no special damages were alleged and proved. Such instructions, we think, are erroneous.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meyerson v. Hurlbut
...trade. It has been held in the past that charges of price cutting directed at a merchant are not actionable per se. Achorn & Co. v. Piper, 1885, 66 Iowa 694, 24 N.W. 513; cf. Dorn & McGinty v. Cooper, 1908, 139 Iowa 742, 750, 117 N.W. 1, 118 N.W. 35, 16 Ann.Cas. 744; Willis v. Eclipse Manuf......
-
Dorn v. Cooper
...publication was made, made pools and combination to regulate or fix the price of any commodity a crime. These statutes did not exist when the Achorn case was decided. counsel insist that these statutes were and are unconstitutional and void, and that the law is in fact the same as when Acho......
-
Wisner v. Nichols
... ... fails to allege any special damage because of its ... publication, fails to state a cause of action. Achorn v ... Piper , 66 Iowa 694, 24 N.W. 513; Pollard v ... Lyon , 91 U.S. 225 (23 L.Ed. 308); Railroad Co. v ... Delaney , 102 Tenn. 289 (52 S.W ... ...
-
Wisner v. Nichols
...upon its face and fails to allege any special damage because of its publication, fails to state a cause of action. Achorn v. Piper, 66 Iowa, 694, 24 N. W. 513;Pollard v. Lyon, 91 U. S. 225, 23 L. Ed. 308; Railroad Co. v. Delaney, 102 Tenn. 289, 52 S. W. 151, 45 L. R. A. 600;Newman v. Stein,......