Lawrence Trust Co. v. Sun-American Pub. Co.

• Citation: 245 Mass. 262,139 N.E. 655
• Parties: LAWRENCE TRUST CO. v. SUN-AMERICAN PUB. CO. et al.
• Decision Date: 25 May 1923
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

245 Mass. 262

139 N.E. 655

LAWRENCE TRUST CO.

v.SUN-AMERICAN PUB. CO. et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

May 25, 1923.

Report from Superior Court, Essex County; Marcus Morton, Judge.

Suit in equity by the Lawrence Trust Company against the Sun-American Publishing Company and others. Demurrer to the bill was overruled by the justice of the superior court, and the case reported to the Supreme Judicial Court, for the reason that the order so affected the merits of the controversy that it ought to be determined by the full court before further proceedings. Order overruling the demurer approved.

Herbert Parker and Erastus H. Hewitt, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

R. G. Dodge and W. A. Barrows, both of Boston, for defendants.

BRALEY, J.

It was said in Boston Diatite Co. v. Florence Manufacturing Co., 114 Mass. 69, 70 (19 Am. Rep. 310):

‘The jurisdiction of a court of chancery does not extend to cases of libel or slander, or of false representations as to the character or quality of the plaintiff's property, or as to his title thereto, which involve no breach of trust or of contract.’

And this general rule has been followed in Whitehead v. Kitson, 119 Mass. 484;Raymond v. Russell, 143 Mass. 295, 9 N. E. 544, 58 Ann. Rep. 137; Covell v. Chadwick, 153 Mass. 263, 267, 26 N. E. 856,25 Am. St. Rep. 625;Finnish Temperance Society v. Raivaaja Publishing Co., 219 Mass. 28, 106 N. E. 561, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 1087. But the bill in the present case contains no allegations that any of the articles published are libelous in character, for which special damages are claimed. It rests upon the ground, stated in paragraphs[245 Mass. 265]3, 5 and 6, that quite apart from any rights of contract or breach of fiduciary relations, the defendants-- ‘with the sole and malicious purpose and intent of each of them of injuring the complainant and of impairing its credit and injuring its business and property, * * * maliciously and unlawfully combined and conspired together to interfere with and injured the lawful business and credit of the complainant, and to induce persons dealing with the complainant as customers or depositors to discontinue such relations with complainant by the making and circulation of divers and many false, malicious, misleading and defamatory statements of and concerning the business and credit of the complainant, and by making and circulating false, malicious and defamatory statements, and charges to the effect and of the intent and tenor that the business of the complainant was and is conducted by its officials who were and are incompetent, untrustworthy, dishonest and unworthy of the confidence of the persons who were or might be dealing with the complainant, as customers or depositors, in its banking business, and said respondents have with their said malicious purpose and intent, and pursuant to their said combination and conspiracy, so combined together to cause, induce and procure, and have in the prosecution and promotion of said conspiracy and combination caused, induced and procured the respondent, the Sun-American Publishing Company, to publish in the editorial and other columns of the said publication under the name of ‘The Sunday Sun’ divers and repeated false, misleading and malicious statements and representations of the tenor and effect that the business and credit of the complainant is failing and depreciating, and that the officers and directors of the complainant corporation are and have been incompetent, dishonest, corrupt and unworthy of the trust and confidence of the public and of the depositors and customers of the complainant. The said respondent John P. S. Mahoney, and said respondent James J. Wrinn, with their intent aforesaid and pursant to their said conspiracy and combination and in the prosecution and promotion thereof have instigated, procured, induced and caused the said respondent SunAmerican Publishing Company to publish and circulate in said newspaper called ‘The Sunday Sun’ divers, many and repeated editorials and statements in language and effect calculated and intended by said respondents John P. S. Mahoney and said James J. Wrinn, by false and misleading statements therein set forth to induce, persuade and entice customers,...