Bridgeport Herald Corp. v. Lower Fairfield County Newsdealers Ass'n

• Decision Date: 07 April 1960
• Docket Number: No. 109581,109581
• Citation: 163 A.2d 658,22 Conn.Supp. 111
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: BRIDGEPORT HERALD CORPORATION et al. v. LOWER FAIRFIELD COUNTY NEWSDEALERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

Page 658

163 A.2d 658

22 Conn.Supp. 111

BRIDGEPORT HERALD CORPORATION et al. v. LOWER FAIRFIELD COUNTY NEWSDEALERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

No. 109581.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Fairfield County at Bridgeport.

April 7, 1960.

Cohen, Schine & Wolf, Bridgeport, for plaintiffs.

Pelletreau & Grosby, Norwalk, for defendant.

FITZ GERALD, Judge.

The within action was instituted by The Bridgeport Herald Corporation, a Connecticut corporation, by service of process on July 9, 1959. On July 14, 1959, the Standard News Company, Inc., also a Connecticut corporation, was given permission by Judge Roberts to intervene as an additional plaintiff, and on the following day filed its complaint as an intervening plaintiff. The action of the plaintiffs under their separate complaints is directed against the Lower Fairfield County Retail Newsdealers Association, Inc., also a Connecticut corporation, as party defendant. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendant, its officers, executive committee, agents and member dealers from increasing the retail sales price of the newspaper owned and published by the first-named plaintiff from 20 cents per copy to 25 cents per copy and from publishing notices in any form of such an increase. They also claim damages of $25,000. On August 28, 1959, following a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction, such was entered as on file by Judge Troland.

Upon a trial to the court on the question of the issuance of a permanent injunction with or without the assessment of damages, the following facts among others were made to appear: The first-named plaintiff, The Bridgeport Herald Corporation, is the owner and publisher of a weekly newspaper known as 'The Bridgeport Herald,' which is distributed and sold throughout Fairfield County and the entire state. The second-named plaintiff, The Standard News Company, Inc., is engaged in the business of selling and distributing 'The Bridgeport Herald' to retail newsdealers in Stamford, Greenwich, Norwalk and Westport, in lower Fairfield County. The defendant, Lower Fairfield County Retail Newsdealers Association, Inc., is composed of a number of the retail newsdealers to whom the second-named plaintiff sells and distributes the Herald in the areas specified, and who in turn sell the Herald to members of the general public in those areas. As applied to this case and to the weekly newspaper in question, the first-named plaintiff occupies the status of publisher, the second-named plaintiff occupies the status of distributor, and the members of the defendant occupy the status of retail newsdealers. The area involved in this case is lower Fairfield County and not elsewhere in Connecticut.

Over a period of some years prior to the commencement of this litigation, the publisher of the Herald charged the distributor 13 1/2 cents per copy; the distributor in turn charged the retail dealers 16 1/2 cents per copy; and the latter charged the members of the public 20 cents per copy. This procedure was based upon an oral working arrangement between the parties involved in this litigation. The retail dealers have become dissatisfied with this arrangement in so far as their gross profit of 3 1/2 cents per copy is concerned. Directly stated, it is their position that they cannot afford to sell the paper to members of the public for less than 25 cents per copy, thus allowing them a gross profit of 8 1/2 cents per copy, in view of other expenses incidental to their handling of the paper. It is the position of the publisher and of the distributors as plaintiffs that if the retail newsdealers who compose the defendant are permitted to sell the paper to the general public for 25 cents per copy, they will suffer irreparable damages from two standpoints: (1) the publis will lose interest in buying the paper because of the increased price per copy and the revenue from sales will decrease; (2) as a result advertisers will curtail or forego the publishing of their advertisements, and additional income will be lost.

The complaint of the publisher alleges a conspiracy on the part of the defendant as the basis of its action and claims of relief. The complaint of the distributor alleges a breach of contract on the part of the defendant as the basis of its action and claims of relief. These basic claims are made for the purpose of securing a ruling to the effect that the plaintiffs as publisher and distributor respectively are entitled to fix, and limit to 20 cents per copy, the price at which the defendant through its members can sell the paper to the general public, and prohibit any increase in that charge by the defendant and its members.

Unless the plaintiffs can fortify their position by proof of a right conferred by a contract or of some right conferred by a statute, their case necessarily fails. Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373, 405 et seq., 31 S.Ct. 376, 55 L.Ed. 502.

As between the publisher and the...