Breckenridge v. Time, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 43617,43617 |
| Citation | 253 Miss. 835,179 So.2d 781 |
| Parties | Charles BRECKENRIDGE v. TIME, INC. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Laurel G. Weir, Philadephia, for appellant.
Wells, Thomas & Wells, Jack W. Brand, Robert G. Gillespie, Jr., Alex A. Alston, Jr., Jackson, Harold R. Medina, Jr., and Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for appellee.
Charles Breckenridge, appellant, brought this libel suit in the Circuit Court of Neshoba County, Mississippi against Time, Inc. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the declaration for want of in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.
Time, Inc. publishes 'Life' magazine, which has a national circulation, including Neshoba County and Mississippi. In the 'Life' issue dated July 3, 1964 there was a story with pictures about the then mysterious disappearance of three civil rights workers in Neshoba County. One picture showed law enforcement officers searching for the three men in a swamp. Another picture showed nine young men, among whom was plaintiff, standing on a bridge above the swamp and laughing. Above this picture was the caption, 'IN THE SWAMP, THE SEARCHERS * * * ON THE ROAD, A JEERING GALLERY * * * Jeerers. While the search goes on, locals--some barefoot--gawk from a nearby bridge. They guffawed when one hooted, 'We throw two or three niggers in every year, to feed the fish."
The declaration charged that before July 3, 1964 the defendant came into Neshoba County and without plaintiff's permission made his picture and published it 'with a false and slanderous statement concerning' him; that plaintiff was not jeering; that the article accused him of jeering or making fun of the law officers investigating the matter; and that all of the statements on the caption to the picture were false. It averred that defendant, by publishing the picture and statements, intended to and did imply falsely and maliciously that plaintiff was not a citizen who would uphold the law and who jeered at law officers, acted stupid, and made fun of the investigation being conducted; that these statements injured plaintiff's good name and reputation, brought him into public disgrace and scandal, and embarrassed and humiliated him, causing him damages.
Time, Inc., appeared solely and specially for the purpose of moving the court to dismiss the action, on the ground that it was incorporated under the laws of New York with its principal office in the State of New York, was not doing business in Mississippi, and did no acts within this state to subject it to the jurisdiction of the state courts. The following facts were developed at a hearing on this motion.
Defendant's principal offices are in New York City, with its circulation office in Chicago, Illinois. It is not qualified to do business in the State of Mississippi, and has no property or assets of any kind in this state. It leases no office space, maintains no bank accounts or corporate books or records, and does not execute contracts in Mississippi. None of its officers or directors resides here, it has no mailing address or telephone listing in Mississippi, and no agent to accept service of process. Time, Inc. does not pay any taxes in this state, does not purchase supplies and equipment, and has no employees or managers in Mississippi. It does not collect bills or accept payment for services rendered in Mississippi.
Time, Inc., publications gather news from the dispatches of the Associated Press, from one hundred staff correspondents employed on a salary basis, and from the dispatches of 350 'stringers,' who are independent third parties paid by Time, Inc., on a per job basis. They are normally local residents of the area which they cover. The actual writing and editing of news stories is done in New York City. Time, Inc., has no news bureau in Mississippi, and none of its staff correspondents is stationed here. It has three 'stringers' in this state. The article and picture caption involved in this suit were written entirely by Time, Inc., employees in New York, and were printed and distributed from Time, Inc.'s printing plants in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Old Saybrook, Connecticut. The photograph accompanying the article was taken by an independent third party and sold to Time, Inc., outside the state.
Direct solicitations for subscriptions by Time, Inc., are mailed to potential subscribers from the Chicago office, none originating in Mississippi. Acceptance of resulting subscriptions can be made only at the Chicago office. Independent third parties are authorized by Time, Inc., to solicit subscriptions, but they are not authorized to accept subscriptions on behalf of Time, Inc. There are five 'college bureau representatives' at the universities and colleges in Mississippi. They are independent agents without authority to accept subscriptions, but they solicit them.
Time, Inc., has no employee or agent regularly soliciting advertising in Mississippi, but occasionally a manager or salesman of defendant visits Mississippi and interviews those few corporations which are considered to be possible advertisers. They have no authority to accept orders for advertising, such contracts being entered into in New York. Time, Inc., has sold advertising space to fewer than six Mississippi advertisers within the past year and a half. This is a very small percentage of total advertising revenue. Defendant's annual revenue from local advertisers is minimal.
All subscription copies of Time, Inc., are shipped by United States mail direct from its printing plants, none of which is in Mississippi. Defendant has nothing to do with the actual physical distribution of its magazines. They are shipped to independent wholesale distributors, including five in Mississippi who acquire such maganizes by outright purchase. Subscribers are billed from the Chicago office, and wholesalers are billed from the New York office.
Appellant asserts that jurisdiction of Mississippi courts over this cause of action may be based upon the 'long arm' statute enacted in 1964. Miss.Laws 1964, ch. 320, being Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 1437 (1964 Supp.). It provides in part:
Any nonresident person, firm, general or limited partnership, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Associated Press
...with the adoption of the statute, Mladinich v. Kohn, 250 Miss. 138, 164 So.2d 785 (1964) ("Mladinich I"), and Breckenridge v. Time, Inc., 253 Miss. 835, 179 So.2d 781 (1965). Mladinich I was decided after legislative adoption of the amendment to the long-arm statute but a few weeks before t......
-
Thompson v. Chrysler Motors Corp.
...States Life Ins. Co., 210 So.2d 307 (Miss.1968); Mladinich v. Kohn, 186 So.2d 481 (Miss.1966); Breckenridge v. Time, Inc., 253 Miss. 835, 179 So.2d 781 (1965); Republic-Transcon Industries, Inc. v. Templeton, 253 Miss. 132, 175 So.2d 185 (1965); Mladinich v. Kohn, 250 Miss. 138, 164 So.2d 7......
-
McDaniel v. Ritter
...at the time--or even now!) that this state's long arm reaches as far as the federal constitution allows. Breckenridge v. Time, Inc., 253 Miss. 835, 842, 179 So.2d 781, 783 (1965); Mladinich v. Kohn, 250 Miss. 138, 147, 164 So.2d 785, 789 (1964).5 See Smith, Choice of Law in the United State......
-
Brewer v. Memphis Pub. Co., Inc.
...be obtained upon its agent. Defendant waived any question of personal jurisdiction that may have existed, see Breckenridge v. Time, Inc., 253 Miss. 835, 179 So.2d 781 (1965), and Lee v. Memphis Pub. Co., 195 Miss. 264, 14 So.2d 351 (1943). In its answer it admitted for purposes of these sui......