Lewis Pub. Co. v. Rural Pub. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1915
• Docket Number: No. 17013.,17013.
• Parties: LEWIS PUB. CO. v. RURAL PUB. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

181 S.W. 93

LEWIS PUB. CO. v. RURAL PUB. CO.

No. 17013.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 8, 1915.

Rehearing Denied December 22, 1915.

In Banc. Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court; G. A. Wurdeman, Judge.

Action by the Lewis Publishing Company against the Rural Publishing Company. Judgment for plaintiff for $30,000, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

The following statement and opinion by WOODSON, J., was handed down in Division No. 1.

Statement.

The plaintiff, a foreign corporation, organized and incorporated under the laws of the state of South Dakota, and licensed to do business in this state at University City, St. Louis county, to do a general printing, publishing, and bindery business, brought this suit against the defendant, the Rural Publishing Company, a corporation organized and incorporated under the laws of the state of New York, with its principal office in the city of New York, but not authorized to do business in this state, to recover $100,000 actual and $150,000 punitive damages, aggregating one-quarter of a million dollars, alleged to have been sustained by it on account of the publication of an alleged libelous article published by the latter against the former, in the city of New York, and circulated in the county and city of St. Louis, Mo., and throughout the United States and Canada, on the 18th day of June, 1910. A trial was had, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of $28,000 actual and $2,000 punitive damages. After moving unsuccessfully for a new trial, the defendant took the necessary preliminary steps therefor and appealed the cause to this court. There are many questions of fact and propositions of law presented by the record in this case to this court for determination, notwithstanding the fact that the suit is one at law and was decided by a jury. This is true because of the general and special demurrers filed by defendant in the circuit court challenging the right of the plaintiff to recover any sum in this case under the pleadings and evidence introduced.

Briefly, the legal propositions presented are: (1) Was the service had upon the defendant legal? (2) Was the article complained of libelous? (3) Was the ruling of the circuit court regarding the admission and exclusion of evidence correct? (4) The meaning of the plaintiff's charter, under the laws of South Dakota, and especially under the laws of this state. (5) The scope of the power and authority of the license of this state to plaintiff to do business herein. (6) The right of plaintiff to recover damages sustained by it in consequence of injury done to its business transacted in this state — not authorized by the laws hereof, or by the license issued to it by the secretary of state authorizing it to do business in Missouri. (7) The right of plaintiff to recover damages in the courts of this state, for injury done to its legitimate business, transacted at the same time and place and with the same officers, agents, and instrumentalities with which it conducted its said illegitimate business. (8) Whether or not sections 3037 and 3040, R. S. 1909, apply to this case. (9) Many incidental or minor questions presented in the record, briefs, etc., covering about 1,000 pages of printed matter, 200 of which is in 6-point type, equaling about 400 pages of 10-point type, the same in which the Missouri Reports are printed.

(This is a small record as compared to many that come to this court, some running into the thousands of pages, and one, as I now remember, to about 16,000 pages. Will the Legislature never relieve this court of this willful, useless, and extravagant folly?)

The bedrock of this suit is the publication of the alleged libelous article complained of, and the petition filed in the case points out the objectional features thereof. The former is embraced in the latter, and the two together read substantially as follows (formal parts omitted):

"Plaintiff, the Lewis Publishing Company, by its attorneys, states that it is, and has been for more than five years last past, a corporation, duly incorporated under the incorporation laws of South Dakota, and as such corporation plaintiff for many years last past has been duly licensed and fully authorized by the state of Missouri (under the laws thereof), to do business in Missouri, and is now so licensed and authorized; and plaintiff has a business office, a plant, and business establishment in the county of St. Louis, Mo., at University City therein; and plaintiff resides in said University City, and in said county of St. Louis.

"Plaintiff states that among the corporate powers which said plaintiff as such corporation has and had the right, franchise, and privilege to enjoy, exercise, and use, at all times herein, were to carry on the business of a general printing office and of editing, printing, publishing, and circulating newspapers, books, magazines, and periodicals; and to carry on the business of building and managing structures for the business aforesaid, and to exercise all other powers incident to such business; and said powers, rights, franchises, privileges, and business of plaintiff as such corporation were and are of great pecuniary value. As such corporation, said plaintiff in the years 1903 and 1904 erected and has since enlarged and now maintains a publishing plant and establishment at University City in said county of St. Louis, Mo., where plaintiff carries on its said business as printer and publisher; and at the time of the printing and publication of the libel hereinafter mentioned, and during the entire month of June, 1910, and for a long time prior thereto, plaintiff was the owner and publisher (among others) of two publications called `The Woman's Magazine' and `The Woman's Farm Journal,' which said `Magazine' and `Farm Journal' said plaintiff owned and published during the years 1904, 1905, and 1906, and part of 1907, and for a long time prior thereto, as well as again, since December, 1907, until after the date of publication of the libel hereinafter mentioned; and said publications at all times herein mentioned were generally, publicly, and commonly known and called `papers' (a term applied thereto by defendants as hereinafter mentioned). That in the spring of the year 1908, Edward G. Lewis, who is president of the plaintiff corporation, and was such president at all times and dates herein mentioned, founded a plan of co-operation between the plaintiff and subscribers to its periodicals, to which plan he gave the name of the `American Woman's League' (afterwards enlarging the plan so as to include other publishers), and part of the said plan which plaintiff put into operation in 1908 included the use and enjoyment by members of the League of tuition in `The People's University,' which was and is an institution of educational character, having certain educational courses in correspondence schools, used and long used by members of said League since the same was organized in 1908. Among these schools were two which are mentioned in the libel hereinafter quoted, namely, the `American School of Home Economics,' Chicago, Ill., and the `Home Correspondence School,' Springfield, Mass.; and in each of said schools there were used (by correspondence) by the pupils thereof, at the date of and prior to the publication of said libel, educational courses of which the authors were and are those whose names appear under the headings of said schools, respectively, in the libel hereinafter quoted. That prior to the publication of the `educational prospectus' mentioned in said libel, the privileges of using said educational courses conducted or prepared by said authors and instructors were secured and obtained for use by members of the American Woman's League by separate contracts between plaintiff and the said two correspondence schools, which contracts were in force at the said date of publication of said libel; and, accordingly, plaintiff lawfully printed and published said prospectus with the said names of said authors and instructors (as recited in said libel) under the headings of said correspondence schools, respectively.

"Said defendant, the Rural Publishing Company, is now, and when this action was brought and at all times herein mentioned was, a corporation incorporated under the laws of New York state, and at all said times aforesaid was and now is doing business in various forms in the state of Missouri; and as such corporation said Rural Publishing Company, defendant, at all times aforesaid was, and now is, owner and publisher of a weekly journal or periodical named and called `The Rural New Yorker,' which (for sake of brevity) will be herein called the `New Yorker,' which has its chief office in New York City on Pearl street, and which said New Yorker at all dates herein mentioned was, and now is, sold, delivered, published, distributed, and circulated by said defendant in the county of St. Louis aforesaid and in the city of St. Louis and throughout the state of Missouri, as well as elsewhere in many other parts of the world; and said New Yorker (journal) now has (and for many years last past has had), a circulation of many thousands of copies thereof.

"The defendants named herein as John Doe and Richard Roe in the first petition were fictitious names to designate real persons whose true names were then unknown to plaintiff at the time when this petition was filed, and plaintiff then prayed leave of court to substitute their real names as defendants when ascertained; and plaintiff by this amended petition designates as a party defendant (intended and designated in first petition herein as Richard Roe), a citizen and resident of Missouri, Albert B. Howell, who is by leave of court made a party defendant; and the personality of said John Doe is yet unknown to plaintiff, but in event of his identification plaintiff will ask leave to name him by later amendment.

"The defendan...