Giacona & Son v. The Bradstreet Company
| Decision Date | 04 May 1896 |
| Docket Number | 12,104 |
| Citation | 48 La.Ann. 1191,20 So. 706 |
| Parties | GIACONA & SON v. THE BRADSTREET COMPANY |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Argued April 24, 1896
Rehearing Refused June 25, 1896.
APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Monroe, J.
Harold W. Newman, for Plaintiffs, Appellees.
Harry H. Hall, for Defendant, Appellant.
The defendants were engaged in the business of collecting and distributing information as to the credit and financial standing of men in business.
The plaintiffs conducted a retail grocery and commission business.
The suit is for an alleged libel committed, it is averred, by the defendants against plaintiffs. The important facts in deciding the issues are that it was published by a reporter of cases in the courts (in the daily court reports) that suit had been brought by H. Lochte & Co. vs. S. Giacona for one hundred and ninety-seven dollars and eighty-nine cents on an account.
Subsequently the same court report published that a judgment had been obtained by this plaintiff against S. Giacona.
Defendants in their printed list of changes furnished to subscribers published that plaintiffs (not S. Giacona as mentioned in the court report, but erroneously), S. Giacona & Son, had been sued.
In the copies of the city directory, introduced in evidence, there was only the firm of Giacona & Son, and no other firm of a similar name.
The defendants in error assumed that plaintiffs had been sued upon an open account, and so reported to their subscribers.
The credit of plaintiffs being that of men of limited means, it is contended by them was affected by the report; several merchants testified that they refused to credit the firm and gave for reason that a pending suit against one in business unexplained is nearly always attended with unfavorable effect to his credit.
Giacona & Son brought this suit for damages against the defendant a few weeks after the defendants had furnished the erroneous information to their subscribers.
The jury found a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of four hundred and ninety-nine dollars. From the verdict and judgment of the court the defendants prosecute this appeal.
In argument it was argued that there is no evidence that there existed any such firm as Giacona & Son, and that without such evidence plaintiffs could not maintain their action.
No plea was interposed and no objection made upon this point in the lower court save in the motion for new trial.
It is true that the existence of the partnership was not specially shown. But in the evidence the firm is frequently referred to as an existing partnership; its existence was not at any time questioned. Moreover, objection to the capacity of plaintiffs to stand in judgment not raised in the pleadings will not be noticed. Adams & Co. vs. Coons et al., 37 An. 305.
There is nothing of record suggesting ill feeling on the part of the defendants, and, therefore, malice is entirely eliminated from consideration.
This brings us to the question of the error committed and its effect upon plaintiffs' business.
It was the misfortune of plaintiffs that those with whom they had business relations were not careful in writing down their names.
In seven bills introduced in evidence their names are differently given. They were made out against S. Giacona & Son, G. Giacano, and other similar names. In the petition, which gave rise to the impression that plaintiffs had been sued, the name of the defendant in the case was given as Giacona. The answer was written in the name of Giocchino. This answer was endorsed, however, by defendants' attorney: Henry Lochte & Co. vs. S. Giacona.
Defendants' clerks testify that they were informed at Lochte's place of business that the Giacona sued were Giacona & Son.
Despite all this, the defendants were not entirely free from all negligence.
By referring to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific Packing Co. v. Bradstreet Co.
...139 P. 1007 25 Idaho 696 THE PACIFIC PACKING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. THE BRADSTREET COMPANY, a Corporation, and LESLIE L. LONG, Respondents Supreme Court of IdahoFebruary 17, 1914 ... integrity, want of credit, or insolvency, and is therefore ... not actionable without proof of special damages. (Giacona ... v. Bradstreet Co., 48 La. Ann. 1191, 20 So. 706; Newbold ... v. J. M. Bradstreet & Son, supra; N. S. Sherman Machinery ... Co. v. Dun, 28 ... ...
-
Simons v. Petersberger
... ... outstanding bills for collection, Petersberger and the Credit ... Adjustment Company, a corporation organized and controlled by ... him, falsely led plaintiff to believe that they ... organized somewhat on the plan of the Dun and Bradstreet ... companies, for the purpose of obtaining and furnishing ... information to certain wholesale ... Press Co., (Pa.) 18 A. 331; Ukman ... v. Daily Record Co., (Mo.) 88 S.W. 60; Giacona v ... Bradstreet Co., (La.) 20 So. 706; Mitchell v ... Bradstreet Co., (Mo.) 22 S.W. 358; Dun ... ...
- N. S. Sherman Mach. Co. v. Dun
- Simons v. Petersberger