Haney Mfg. Co. v. Perkins

• Decision Date: 15 November 1889
• Citation: 78 Mich. 1,43 N.W. 1073
• Parties: HANEY MANUF'G CO. v. PERKINS ET AL.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

43 N.W. 1073

78 Mich. 1

HANEY MANUF'G CO. v. PERKINS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 15, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Kent county.

Taggart & Dennison, for appellant.

Taggart, Wolcott & Ganson, for appellees.

LONG J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, a manufacturing corporation, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by reason of the publication, oral, written, and printed, of the statement that the defendants had brought suit in the United States court against the plaintiff for an infringement of a patent, and had secured an injunction against it, and closed it up, which statements were claimed to be false and malicious. The plaintiff is a manufacturing corporation, located at Grand Rapids, and engaged in making school-seats. The defendants are partners, under the name of the "Grand Rapids School Furniture Company," making substantially the same seats, and the two are competitors for the same trade throughout the country. Prior to July 9, 1886 defendants bought up an old patent on school seats known as the "Slaymaker Patent," and on that day defendant Perkins, claiming to own the same, filed a bill in the United States circuit court at Grand Rapids against the plaintiff alleging that the seat made by the Haney Company infringed the Slaymaker patent. No injunction was asked or granted, and afterwards, on final hearing on the merits, the bill was dismissed.

The declaration by which the present action was commenced contains six counts. The first count charges that the defendants published the matter complained of in the newspapers of Grand Rapids, and caused such papers to be circulated generally among persons likely to purchase plaintiff's goods; and that it also published the same statements, in substance, by letters written by said defendants, and by them sent out by mail broadcast throughout the country, to any and every person whose name they could learn who was negotiating with plaintiff for the purchase of its goods. The second count charges that the defendants made such statements in person and by their agents at their offices in Grand Rapids, and by their agents throughout the country, to and in hearing of divers persons intending to purchase school seats of the plaintiff, and to the public generally. The third count charges that the defendants caused such statements to be published in the Grand Rapids Telegram-Herald, a newspaper published at Grand Rapids, and circulating throughout the state of Michigan and elsewhere. The fourth count charges that the defendants made such statements in a letter addressed to one Elliott, and sent him at Council Grove, Kan. The fifth count charges that the defendants made such statements orally to a Mr. Demass and a Mr. Conrad, of Clinton county, Mich. The sixth count charges that the defendants made such statements to the school board of the village of Grand Ledge. At the close of the trial in the circuit court, the court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendants on the ground that the testimony offered by the plaintiff did not entitle it to recover.

It is insisted here by the counsel for the defendants that the testimony offered and that produced on the trial by the plaintiff, if true, would not constitute any ground of recovery; or, in other words, that there was nothing to go to the jury, and that the court was not in error in directing the verdict. Under the third count of the declaration, plaintiff produced a Telegram-Herald newspaper of July 15, 1886, containing an article stating that there was a lively competition between the Grand Rapids School Furniture Company and the Haney Manufacturing Company, and, among other statements, that the former company had secured an injunction against the Haney Manufacturing Company, restraining it from manufacturing seats with patent bracket and fold, etc. This article was offered in evidence by plaintiff, and ruled out by the court. Before the offer was finally made the plaintiff claims to have shown, or offered to show, certain other facts which tended to prove the responsibility of the defendants in this publication.

From the evidence given and offered on this subject it is claimed that it appeared or was offered to be shown: (1) That the article on its face was an advertisement for the benefit of the defendants. (2) That it could not have been made up from the court records, for its statement as to the injunction was not suggested by the record. (3) That it contained a statement (that the Grand Rapids Company had sent a representative to Louisville and Cincinnati, and purchased an old patent) which was within the private knowledge of defendants, and must have been furnished by them. (4) That it was not written by a reporter, in the usual way, nor by any one connected with the paper. (5) That Mr. Sprout, the newspaper man, found the manuscript of the article on his desk, in a strange handwriting, having come in through the business office of the publishing company. (6) That the last paragraph of this manuscript was of such a nature (most naturally so extreme against the Haney Company) that the manager thought it was not prudent to publish it in that form, and such last paragraph was accordingly cut out. (7) That defendants' account-books showed a payment July 29th to the Telegram-Herald of $8.55 for advertising, the entry being "Adv. Com. Rec.," which Mr. Peregrine says means, "Advertising Commercial Record," but none of the defendants have any idea what this payment was for, unless for advertising for men or for job-printing. (8) That during that year the Telegram-Herald did no job-printing nor any work except publishing a newspaper, and that defendants had no advertisement in the Telegram-Herald on July 29th, or for 90 days before, unless it was this article. (9) That exactly the same false statement as to the injunction contained in the article was repeated by defendants in a letter by Mr. Peregrine personally, and was current in defendants' office among their employes.

The court was of the opinion that these matters taken together, had no tendency to show...