Coffman v. Spokane Chronicle Pub. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 September 1911
• Citation: 65 Wash. 1,117 P. 596
• Parties: COFFMAN et al. v. SPOKANE CHRONICLE PUB. CO. et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

117 P. 596

65 Wash. 1

COFFMAN et al. v. SPOKANE CHRONICLE PUB. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 6, 1911

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; D. H. Carey Judge.

Action by Elizabeth L. Coffman and another against the Spokane Chronicle Publishing Company, in which Thomas Hooker and another intervened as defendants. From a judgment for plaintiffs, the corporation and interveners appeal. Affirmed.

H. M. Stephens, for appellants.

Graves Kizer & Graves, Reese H. Voorhees, F. M. Dudley, and W. E Cullen, for respondents.

CROW J.

Action by Elizabeth L. Coffman and Thomas J. Coffman, her husband, against the Spokane Chronicle Publishing Company, a corporation, to recover damages arising from a libelous article published by the defendant. The defendant, being the owner of the Spokane Chronicle, a daily newspaper, published certain articles on September 18, 1908, January 9, February 27, and May 8, 1909, as follows:

'Young Lady Claims Breach of Promise.

'For failure to carry out his promise to make her his wife, Jeannette De Camp has started suit against Thomas J. Coffman of the Howard Coffman Implement Company to recover damages to the amount of $25,000. The young woman claims that she first met the defendant in March, 1903, about two weeks after the death of his wife. The defendant showed her attentions and talked of marriage, but said it would not be best to marry so soon after the death of his wife, states the complaint. The proposed marriage was postponed, and in the meantime, the plaintiff alleges, the man who had promised to wed her accomplished her downfall. For several months, she claims, at his suggestion, she conducted a lodging house, where she and the defendant lived as husband and wife.'

'Woman's Sin Does Not Excuse Man. 'Kaufmann Can't Shut Out Her Story Because of Her Fault.

'In the breach of promise suit of Jeannette De Camp against Thomas J. Kaufmann of the implement firm of Howard Kaufmann--Kaufmann Co., in which the woman asks for $25,000 damages, an important ruling has been made by Judge W. A. Huneke on a law point seldom raised, and on which there are few precedents. The woman in addition to the breach of promise to marry, pleads her own ruin which was accomplished, she alleges, by the defendant during their engagement and by reason of his repeated promises of marriage. The defendant moved to strike out of the complaint the paragraph in which the woman pleads her ruin, for the reason that such evidence was not admissible, the woman being equally guilty with the man, if such a relation be proven, and that the matter is barred by the statute of limitation from the case. With the few authorities at hand, and with the sentiment of society which in such cases is always in sympathy with the woman, the court has no hesitancy in ruling that the seduction can be pleaded and is actionable for damages with the breach of promise pleaded. As to the limitation, the court holds that the two grounds of action are so closely associated that they cannot properly be separated, and since the action for breach of promise is brought within the limited period, the other cannot be barred on that ground. The plaintiff claims that their acquaintance began in 1903, and that in July of that year they had become engaged. The marriage was set and repeatedly postponed until November, 1907, when the woman was informed that her fiancé had changed his mind and that it was all over between them.'

'Judge Huneke this morning denied the motion of Jeannette De Camp to strike portions of the affirmative defense from the answer of Thomas J. Coffman, who the woman is suing for breach of promise and seduction. The paragraph to which the plaintiff objected and wished stricken, recites that the plaintiff had been at Colfax with one Draper, passing as his wife; that she, during the summer of 1908, had been at Portland in company with Draper, going as his wife.'

'Broke Promise, Settled Suit.

'Dismissed by stipulation, without costs to either party, is the fate of the $25,000 breach of promise suit of Jeannette M. De Camp against Thomas J. Coffman, member of the Howard & Coffman Company, implement dealers. The first meeting of the parties, Miss De Camp declares, was about April, 1903, when Coffman began showing her attentions. A few months later she accepted his proposal of marriage, but the wedding was postponed for one cause and another for over four years, until November, 1907, when he broke the engagement. Coffman admitted he had been infatuated by the plaintiff and that in November, 1906, they became engaged, but no definite date was exer fixed for the marriage. About October, 1907, or nearly a year after the engagement, he claims Miss De Camp accompanied Harry Draper, the detective, to Colfax, and there was introduced and passed as Draper's wife. Later, he declared, she spent several days in Portland in company with Draper, passing as his wife, and for a long time, he believes, had been the mistress of Draper.'

After pleading the above articles, the complaint in substance alleges that notwithstanding the knowledge the defendant company had with reference to the breach of promise suit it on May 28, 1909, printed in a conspicuous place on the first page of its newspaper, with heavy leaded display lines, a further article reading as follows: 'Coffman Marries Woman Who Sued Him.

'After having been sued by Miss Elizabeth J. Burns for $10,000 for breach of promise, and after having accused her of staying in Portland and Colfax as the wife of Harry Draper, Thomas Jefferson Coffman has decided to call bygones bygones and get married, and his bride is the woman whom he publicly accused of scandalous conduct. Miss Burns, whose home is at Hailey, Idaho, sued Coffman for breach of promise some months ago. Coffman filed an answer and cross-complaint accusing Miss Burns and Harry Draper of improper conduct and of pretending to be husband and wife. Both vehemently denied the accusation. The $10,000 breach of promise suit was settled out of court a few weeks ago, and the culmination of the affair is the issuing of the marriage license to Mr. Coffman and Miss Burns. Coffman, Miss Burns alleged in her suit, was engaged to be married to another woman.'

It is further alleged the publication last mentioned was wanton, malicious, libelous, and defamatory. By its amended answer the defendant, after making denials and admitting the publication, affirmatively alleged that, by mistake and inadvertence, plaintiff's name was inserted instead of the name of the plaintiff in the breach of promise suit, that the publication was made without intent to wrong the plaintiffs or either of them, and that the defendant in its next issue of May 29, 1909, published on the third page of its paper a correction article, reading as follows:

'He Didn't Marry Woman Who Sued.

'Miss Janet De Camp, and not Elizabeth Burns, is the woman who sued Thomas Jefferson Coffman for $10,000, alleging breach of promise some months ago. Coffman accused Miss De Camp and a detective of improper conduct at Portland, Ore., alleging that they pretended to be husband and wife. This charge was emphatically denied. Miss Burns is the young lady from Hailey, Idaho, who was recently married to Mr. Coffman. She is stated to be an estimable young woman, the daughter of a mining man.'

During the progress of the action and before trial, Thomas Hooker and Henry Rising filed a motion asking that they be substituted as parties defendant, or that, if the motion be denied, they be permitted to intervene. They also filed a complaint in intervention and answer. The motion was based upon a showing that they had succeeded to all property, rights, and franchises of the defendant; that the defendant was proceeding to disincorporate; that the property to which they had succeeded might become liable for the satisfaction of any judgment entered herein; that they would give security for any judgment obtained; and that they are the only persons other than plaintiffs now interested in the event of the action. In their complaint in intervention they made similar allegations, and by their answer they pleaded the identical defenses theretofore pleaded by the defendant corporation. Their motion was denied, and upon plaintiffs' motion their complaint in intervention was stricken. On a trial of the issues between the plaintiffs and the defendant corporation, a verdict for $5,000 was returned in plaintiffs' favor, upon which judgment was entered. The defendant corporation has appealed. The interveners Thomas Hooker and Henry Rising have also appealed.

The appellants Hooker and Rising contend the trial court erred in striking their complaint in intervention. The controlling question thus raised is whether they were entitled to intervene under sections 202, 203, Rem. & Bal. Code. An examination of the authorities pertaining to this right make it apparent that the doctrine of intervention now embodied in the Code of this state was originally enacted in the Code of Louisiana, from which it has since been substantially adopted by Washington, California, Iowa Minnesota, South Dakota, and other states. What interest in the matter in litigation will authorize an intervention was considered in Gasquet v. Johnson, 1 La. 425, 431. The court said: 'This we suppose must be a direct interest by which the intervening party is to obtain immediate gain, or suffer loss by the judgment, which may be rendered between the original parties; otherwise the strange anomaly would be introduced into our jurisprudence of suffering an accumulation of suits in all instances where doubts might be entertained, or enter into the imagination of subsequent plaintiffs, that a defendant against whom a...