Creekmore v. Runnels

• Decision Date: 12 December 1949
• Docket Number: No. 41428.,41428.
• Citation: 224 S.W.2d 1007
• Parties: GRANT CREEKMORE, Appellant, v. CLEO RUNNELS, R.H. SEABOUGH, F.S. TUGGLE, OSCAR FITTERER, LAWRENCE TINGLER, CARL MORRISON, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

224 S.W.2d 1007

GRANT CREEKMORE, Appellant, v. CLEO RUNNELS, R.H. SEABOUGH, F.S. TUGGLE, OSCAR FITTERER, LAWRENCE TINGLER, CARL MORRISON, Respondents.

No. 41428.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Division Two, December 12, 1949.

Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court; Hon. James W. Davis, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

R. Leroy Miller and Robert C. Frith for appellant.

(1) Appellant's motion for judgment on the pleadings should have been sustained by the Circuit Court (Trs. 9) for the reason that defendants failed to file answer thirty days after service of summons. Mo. R.S.A., sec. 847.58; Code, sec. 58; Carr, Missouri Civil Procedure, sec. 187; 2 Carr, Missouri Civil Procedure, pp. 543, 544. (2) A charge of heresy is slanderous and libelous per se when directed toward a minister of the gospel. 53 C.J.S., sec. 39, p. 87; Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1938, p. 466; Pentuff v. Park, 194 N.C. 146, 138 S.E. 616, 56 A.L.R. 626. (3) No privilege exists in favor of respondents to charge appellant with heresy. Fisher v. Myers, 339 Mo. 1196, 100 S.W. (2d) 551.

Charles D. Brandom and Kitt & Lintner for respondents.

(1) Respondents' Motions: To Dismiss (for failure of Petition to state claim or cause of action); To Strike; and for More Definite Statement of Petition were timely filed as responsive pleadings to Appellant's Petition and altered the time for answering. New Civil Code, Secs. 58, 62, 63, 65, 68; Laws 1943, pp. 373-376. (2) The pleadings were not closed and appellant's motion for judgment was premature and was properly stricken. New Civil Code, sec. 68, supra; Mo. S.A., sec. 847.68; 1 Carr, Missouri Civil Procedure, sec. 200, pp. 510-511. (3) The timely filing of respondents' motions altered the time within which respondents were required to file answer or other responsive pleading to appellant's petition. New Civil Code, sec. 58; Mo. S.A., sec. 847.58; 1 Carr, Missouri Civil Procedure, sec. 187, pp. 416-418; 1 Moore's Federal Practice (1938), pp. 620, 627, 628; 17 Hughes, Federal Practice, p. 429. (4) Appellant's petition failing to state a cause of action (claim), his motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly denied. McCrosky v. Burnham, 282 S.W. 158; Jones v. Williams, 209 S.W. (2d) 907. (5) In construing an alleged libelous publication, the article should be taken as a whole, and its meaning and effect determined from its entire contents, from the occasion, surrounding circumstances, extrinsic facts with which such words are connected, and the apparent object of the writer; and if possible must be given an innocent meaning. Clark v. McBaine, 252 S.W. 428, 299 Mo. 77; Dust Sprayer Co. v. Western Fruit Grower, 103 S.W. 566, 126 Mo. App. 139; Hylsky v. Globe Democrat, 152 S.W. (2d) 119, 348 Mo. 83; Warren v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 78 S.W. (2d) 404, 336 Mo. 184; Frazier v. Grob, 194 Mo. App. 405, 183 S.W. 1083. (6) Alleged libelous articles or words, while taken in their plain and ordinary meaning, will be construed fairly by their natural import, according to the ideas they are calculated and intended to convey to those to whom they were addressed; words may convey a different meaning to members of a Church or other organization than they would convey to persons outside the Church or particular organization. Hylsky v. Globe Democrat Pub. Co., 152 S.W. (2d) l.c. 122; Grossman v. Globe Democrat Pub. Co., 149 S.W. (2d) 362, 347 Mo. 869; Kleinschmidt v. Bell, 183 S.W. (2d) 87, 353 Mo. 516; Church Manual designed for use by Baptist Churches, By J.M. Pendleton, D.D. — published by American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia — April, 1903 — page 135. Funk & Wagnall's: "New College Standard Dictionary" (May, 1947), "Heresy." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (by G. & C. Merriam Co., 1914), "Heretic" Syn. "A Schismatic." (7) To charge appellant as a church member, with "heresy," is not slanderous per se. The ordinary meaning of "heresy" does not impute malicious defamation. Webster's Unabridged International Dictionary (1935); New Century Dictionary (1931); 14 A.L.R. 881; 39 C.J.S. 893; 8 C.J. 1118. (8) Since the petition does not plead that appellant was engaged in the practice of his profession as a minister (but only a member of the church) the charge of "heresy" is not directed against him in a professional capacity. 33 Am. Jur., p. 88, sec. 75; 53 C.J.S., p. 78, notes 55-56; Bank v. Goodwin, 167 Mo. App. 211, 149 S.W. 1148; Age-Herald Pub. Co. v. Waterman, 202 Ala. 665, 81 So. 621; Sleight v. Woods, 260 N.Y.S. 825, 145 Miss. 824; McKee v. Wilson, 87 N.C. 300; Gattis v. Kilgo, 128 N.C. 403, 38 S.E. 931. (9) The alleged charge of "heresy" against appellant will be construed as a charge against a member only, of the Gallatin Church. Baldwin v. Walser, 41 Mo. App. 243. (10) The petition alleging a charge of "heresy" against appellant as a layman or church member only, not being actionable per se, no cause of action was stated, because no extrinsic facts, no innuendo were pleaded to show wherein such statement was defamatory. McKim v. Moore, 291 Mo. 697, 237 S.W. 773; Stowers v. Merc. Co., (Mo. App.) 140 S.W. (2d) 714; Kerone v. Block, 144 Mo. App. 575, 129 S.W. 43; Baldwin v. Walser, 41 Mo. App. 243; Cook v. Pub. Co., 241 Mo. 326 145 S.W. 480; Walsh v. Pub. Co., 250 Mo. 142, 157 S.W. 326; Childers v. Nesselroad, 212 S.W. (2d) 727; Bernhardt v. Armbruster, 217 S.W. (2d) 759. (11) The petition does not allege libelous or slanderous statements; its whole context shows an intent to plead appellant's complaint of being expelled from membership in the Gallatin Baptist Church, which states no cause of action in a civil court. Watson v. Garvin, 54 Mo. 353; Landis v. Campbell, 79 Mo. 433, 49 Am. Rep. 239; Warren v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 336 Mo. 184, 78 S.W. (2d) 404; Stone v. Bogue, 238 Mo. App. 392, 181 S.W. (2d) 187.

BARRETT, C.

In this action for libel and slander the plaintiff, Grant Creekmore, prays for $25,000.00 actual damages and $50,000.00 punitive damages. Upon his refusal to amend his petition or to plead further, the trial court sustained the defendants' motion to dismiss his cause for the reason that his petition did not state a cause of action and he appeals from the judgment of dismissal. The plaintiff, admittedly, does not allege or claim that the language was defamatory of him in his individual capacity and he does not plead any special loss or injury and the essential issue and question for decision is whether, in the circumstances alleged in the petition, the words written and spoken of the plaintiff, fairly construed, are in and of themselves defamatory and will necessarily occasion loss to the plaintiff in his capacity, character and profession of a clergyman. It is assumed for the purposes of this opinion that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged his capacity and profession of an ordained Baptist minister even though it is not alleged that he was actively engaged in his calling when the language was published. The petition alleges and describes the relationship of the parties in this language: "Plaintiff states that he is a regularly ordained minister of the Baptist Church and was on February 4, 1948, a member of the Gallatin Baptist Church; that defendants, F.S. Tuggle, Oscar Fitterer, Lawrence Tingler and Carl Morrison are members of the Board of Deacons of said church; that defendant Cleo Runnells is the church clerk of said church; that R.H. Seabough is the regular minister of said church." The alleged maliciously false and defamatory language, published to the church membership by the deacons, the clerk and the pastor, was the following letter to the plaintiff:

                "Mr. Grant Creekmore
                 Gallatin, Mo
                 Dear Sir
                

This is a written notice for you to appear at the regular business session of the Gallatin Baptist church Wednesday evening February 4, 1948 at 7:30 P.M. to show cause why the church should not withdraw the hand of fellowship from you on grounds of:

                      1. Heresy
                      2. Disturbing the peace and union of
                         the church
                      3. Refusing to hear the church in its
                         efforts to restore peace."
                

[1] The appellant contends, and it is the essence of this case, that it is libelous per se to charge a clergyman with heresy. In this connection it is urged that there is a difference in clergymen and other professions and that words may be actionable per se when used with respect to a clergyman although the same words would not be actionable without a charge of special damages if spoken of others. 53 C.J.S., Sec. 39, p. 87. Defamatory imputations affecting persons in their special occupation, business or profession are, of course, actionable without allegation or proof of special damage. 33 Am. Jur., Sec. 63, p. 80. But it cannot be that there is a special rule applicable only to clergymen and not to other professions. It may be, because of his exalted position, the dignity of his office and his assumed impeccable character, that a clergyman is more susceptible to injury by the derogatory imputations of language and in this there may be a difference in the clergyman and other professions or callings, but the special character of his office does not enhance his right to protection. Townshend, Slander & Libel, Sec. 181, p. 222. Defamatory imputations concerning and affecting a clergyman in his professional character are libelous per se (33 Am. Jur., Sec. 75, p. 87) but it does not follow that all disparaging language or "words which tend to bring a clergyman into disrepute or which merely impute that he has done something wrong are actionable without proof of special damage." Newell, Slander & Libel, Sec. 144, p. 176. The language must consist of an imputation prejudicial to him in his special character as a clergyman, an imputation impeaching his skill or knowledge, one that tends to disqualify him and render him unfit to fulfill the duties of his office as a clergyman. To be actionable per se the language must impute a lack of integrity or misconduct importing a moral or mental unfitness...