Comer v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1907 |
| Citation | 151 Ala. 622,44 So. 676 |
| Parties | COMER v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; Charles A. Senn, Judge.
Action by B. B. Comer against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and others for libel; the facts being similar to those in the case of the same plaintiff against the Age-Herald Publishing Company (44 So. 673). From a judgment sustaining demurrers to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Frank S. White & Sons and Cabaniss & Weakley, for appellant.
John W Chamblee and Tillman, Grub, Bradley & Morrow, for appellees.
This was an action for damages for the publication of a libel; one count alleging the publication in the Age-Herald, and another that the same article was published in the Ledger, both newspapers published in Birmingham, Ala. Demurrers were interposed to the complaint as amended, which were sustained by the court. The plaintiff declined to plead further or amend, and judgment was rendered for the defendant.
The first question raised by the demurrers, and argued by appellant, is whether or not that part of the act of February 20, 1899, amending section 1441 of the Code of 1896 with regard to giving notice before bringing suit, applies to persons, other than the publishers of the paper, who have had communications or other articles published in said newspaper by paying therefor. The clause in question reads "Before any suit for libel shall be brought for the publication of an article in any newspaper in this state, the aggrieved party shall, at least five days before beginning suit, serve notice in writing on the publisher or publishers of said newspaper, at their principal office of publication if within the state, specifying the statements in said article which he or they allege to be false and defamatory and if it shall appear on the trial of said action that said article was published in good faith, that its falsity was due to mistake and misapprehension, and that a full correction or retraction of any false statement therein was published," etc., the plaintiff shall "recover only actual damages." Gen. Acts 1898-99, p 32
This matter is res integra, and we are left to the wording of the statute and its apparent object for our guide in its interpretation. The statute provides that the notice shall be served in writing "on the publisher or publishers of said newspaper," and no provision is made for serving notice on any other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starks v. Comer
... ... which J.J. Smith was president; that defendant and his ... alleged confederates were officials engaged in the employment ... of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company; and that they ... arranged by contract and for a pecuniary consideration for ... the publication of the article in ... ...
-
Davies v. Bossert
...defendants, have the capability of publishing a retraction which has an almost instant countering effect); Comer v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 151 Ala. 622, 44 So. 676 (1907) (publishers of newspaper are in the class which the retraction statute was designed to protect but advertisers who prepa......
-
Farr v. Bramblett
...and leaves room for no exceptions. In the Pridonoff case the court expressly cited and refused to follow Comer v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 151 Ala. 622, 44 So. 676, a case holding that the Alabama statute did not apply to an advertiser. 36 Cal.2d at page 791, 228 P.2d The next question is ......
-
Field Research Corp. v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco
...241, 13 A.L.R.3d 1271 (§ 48a not applicable to one who merely intrudes upon a live television broadcast); Comer v. Louisville & N.R. Co. (1907) 151 Ala. 622, 44 So. 676 (statute similar to § 48a held not applicable to advertisers).) To the extent that Farr v. Bramblett (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d......