Johnson v. Bradstreet Co.

• Decision Date: 26 October 1886
• Parties: JOHNSON v. THE BRADSTREET COMPANY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

77 Ga. 172

JOHNSON v. THE BRADSTREET COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

October 26, 1886

October Term, 1886.

Where a commercial agency contracted, for a consideration, to collect and furnish information to its subscribers concerning the standing of merchants in various parts of the United States, and sent out by carrier to two subscribers a written or printed slip containing statements to the effect that a certain merchant was drinking and failing in business, and another to the effect that such person had not improved, and in both instances stating that it would be well to watch and to be slow to trust him, which slips were kept in the stores of the subscribers for some days and were seen by the clerks and perhaps others, such statements were not privileged communications, and if false, they furnished a ground for the recovery of damages by the person libelled.

( a. ) The contract to pry into and give information concerning the business of another does not create such a public or private duty, legal or moral, as would make a false communication injurious to another, privileged.

( b. ) The falsity of a communication, in printing or writing, maligning the private character and mercantile standing of another is itself evidence of legal malice, and unless it be strictly a privileged communication in the performance of a public duty or a private duty, moral or legal, and then bona fide and not as a cloak for private malice, a right of action arises.

Libel. Privileged Communications. Before Judge VAN EPPS. City Court of Atlanta. June Term, 1886.

James Johnson brought suit against the Bradstreet Company to recover damages for a libel. The evidence is sufficiently stated in the decision. On the trial, the jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, the leading ground of the motion being:

Because the court erred in charging the jury as follows: " If as alleged by the plaintiff in this declaration, the Bradstreet Company is a corporation, which keeps on file at its various offices in the United States, and furnishes to all persons who pay therefor, information as to the worth and character of all persons engaged in mercantile pursuits; and if the jury believe from the evidence that the witnesses Wyly and Elam Johnson, were subscribers of the defendant, and the defendant was under a duty to furnish information as to the standing of merchants; and if the jury further believe from the evidence that the said Wyly and Johnson were patrons of the plaintiff, and accustomed to sell him goods, and interested in the question of his business and standing as a merchant; and if the jury further believe from the evidence that the defendant, in good faith, and acting upon information upon which it relied, furnished upon request or volunteered information in writing as to the business and standing of the plaintiff to the said Wyly and Johnson, and to none other not similarly situated, then the information thus furnished by the defendant was a privileged communication within the meaning of the law, and operates to bar the plaintiff's action, unless the evidence shows the existence of express malice as to the motive of the publication."

The motion was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted.

T. P WESTMORELAND; JAS. MAYSON; R. ARNOLD, for plaintiff in error.

CANDLER THOMSON & CANDLER, for defendant.

JACKSON Chief Justice.

The plaintiff in error sued the Bradstreet Company for a libel. Under the charge of the court, the jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted to the refusal of a new trial, and assignments of error thereon are before us.

The main question is, whether or not the publication of the libel is a privileged communication, under the statutes of this state, in the light of the facts in this record. The Bradstreet Company, through an agent in Atlanta, sent around by a boy to certain of their contractors a slip of printed and written paper to the effect that the plaintiff in error was drinking and failing in business, and another to the effect that he had not improved, and in...