Hanschke v. Bureau, 20.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1931
• Docket Number: No. 20.,20.
• Citation: 239 N.W. 318,256 Mich. 272
• Parties: HANSCHKE v. MERCHANTS' CREDIT BUREAU et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

256 Mich. 272

239 N.W. 318

HANSCHKE

v.MERCHANTS' CREDIT BUREAU et al.

No. 20.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 8, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; George W. Sample, Judge.

Action by Louis Hanschke against the Merchants Credit Bureau, a Michigan corporation, and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Leon Dreifuss, of Detroit (Milton B. Safier, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant Albert J. Boyer.

Edgar G. Braun, of Detroit (Monaghan, Crowley, Reilley & Kellogg, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant Merchants' Credit Bureau.

Alean B. Clutts, of Detroit (I. Ernest Sachs, and S. Amer Cox, both of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.

McDONALD, J.

This is an action to recover damages for libel. In December, 1926, the plaintiff was employed in the city of Detroit as auditor and salesman for the Chelsea Rubber Company. The defendant Merchants' Credit Bureau is a corporation organized for the benefit and protection of merchants in the city of Detroit. Its secretary testified: ‘Our corporation is en gaged in the business of procuring and preserving information regarding persons and corporations, partnerships and companies, for the purpose of protecting our subscribers and our membership, and furnishing them with such information upon request.’

The defendant Boyer is a member of the Merchants' Credit Bureau. On information furnished by him, the bureau published the following matter of and concerning the plaintiff: ‘Hanschke: It has been reported that the above party, representing the Chelsea Rubber Co., Chelsea, Michigan, presented a check for merchandise in the amount of $47.65 to a local member, and while they were seeking information on the telephone, he disappeared. The check was drawn on the Grand Rapids National bank. If this party comes to your attention, notify this office.’

It is conceded that the publication was false. On demand, defendant published a retraction. This suit was brought. The plaintiff was given a judgment for $3,500 in a trial by the court without a jury. The defendant appealed.

The defendants' plea of qualified privilege presents the principal question in the case. The Merchants' Credit Bureau is a corporation organized for profit. Its articles of association announce the purose of the corporation to be as follows: ‘Collecting, compiling, preserving of reports and information concerning the financial standing, reputation and responsibility of individuals, firms and corporations, and for the purpose of furnishing and selling such reports to members of and subscribers to this corporation, and to other persons, firms and corporation; and for the further purpose of collecting accounts, claims and demands of any individual, firm or corporation desiring said service.’

In carrying out the purpose of its organization, it contracts with subscribers and members to furnish such information on request, and provides that all information furnished shall be for the sole use and benefit of the subscribers, and shall be held by them in strict confidence. One feature of the service not required by the contract is the publication and circulation of a weekly bulletin which: ‘gives a summary of all the cautionary notices received during the week, such as fraudulent checks passed, illegal buying, forgery, stolen checks, and post office money orders, names upon whom the bureau has received important information, lost and found addresses, and any other items...