McDavid v. Houston Chronicle Printing Co.

Decision Date07 February 1912
Citation146 S.W. 252
PartiesMcDAVID et al. v. HOUSTON CHRONICLE PRINTING CO.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Bastrop County; Ed. R. Sinks, Judge.

Action by Mrs. R. L. McDavid and husband against the Houston Chronicle Printing Company. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Mrs. R. L. McDavid and her husband, Doc McDavid, brought this suit against the Houston Chronicle Printing Company, a private corporation, for damages on account of an alleged libel. The defendant's answer embraced a general demurrer, several special exceptions, a general denial and a special plea, the contents of which need not be here stated. The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the plaintiffs' petition, and the latter have appealed and assign that ruling as error. Omitting certain formal parts, the petition reads as follows:

"(1) Plaintiffs reside in the county of Bastrop, state of Texas. The defendant is a private corporation, duly incorporated under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Texas, and has its principal office and place of business in Houston, Harris county, Texas, and Marcellus E. Foster, who resides in said county of Harris, is the president and general manager of said defendant company, and C. B. Gillespie, who also resides in said county of Harris, is its secretary, upon either of whom service may be had for the purposes of this suit.

"(2) Plaintiffs allege that they are husband and wife, and that they are aged, respectively, 56 and 50 years, and that they have resided in Bastrop county, state aforesaid, during the whole of their lives, and until this date; that they have been intermarried about 32 years, during which time they have resided as aforesaid in said county of Bastrop, Tex., and have reared a family of six children, of which all but two are adults, and the said children of plaintiffs, husband and wife, consists of three boys and three girls, all of whom are and have been married except two boys, who still reside with plaintiff at their home in Smithville, Bastrop county, Tex., and are aged 14 and 15 years, respectively; that Mrs. Leora Alice Allison, formerly Mrs. Chas. H. Fischer, who resides in Houston, Harris county, Tex., is their daughter; that on or about the 5th day of October, 1910, the said Mrs. Leora Alice Allison was the wife of Chas. H. Fischer, and that she, the said Mrs. Allison, and her said husband, resided in Houston, Harris county, Tex., that at said last-named date the said Mrs. Leora Alice Allison, then Mrs. Chas. H. Fischer, was not residing with her said husband, but had filed suit for a divorce in the name of Leora Alice Fischer against the said Chas. H. Fischer, her husband, at said date, in the district court of Harris county, Tex., for the Fifty-Fifth judicial district, and was then prosecuting her said suit to final judgment; that plaintiffs, husband and wife, were in no wise parties to said suit, and had no interest in the same any further than the natural interest of father and mother for the welfare of the said Mrs. Leora Alice Allison, their said child; that they had never during the married life of the said Chas. H. Fischer and their said daughter in any manner whatsoever intermeddled or interfered with their domestic affairs, or sought, in any manner, whatsoever, to influence the policies of the said Chas. H. Fischer and wife in the conduct of their community affairs, and really knew but little of the said husband of their said daughter.

"(3) Plaintiffs further allege that they are now, and from their birth hitherto have been, good, pious, honest, and virtuous persons, and have always during all of their time aforesaid behaved, conducted, and governed themselves as such, and that, until the time of the writing, publishing, and circulation of the false, scandalous, and malicious libel hereinafter mentioned, have always been and were reputed and esteemed among all of their friends and neighbors, and among divers other good and worthy citizens of this state, to be persons of good name, fame, credit, and reputation, and they the said plaintiffs, husband and wife, in their marital and mutual relations, have always conducted themselves and their community and domestic affairs in such a manner as to merit the confidence, esteem, and respect of their neighbors, and of all right-thinking people of this state; that each of them (plaintiffs) have always since their marriage aforesaid pursued, each towards the other, a course of conduct and behavior consistent with their said marital and conjugal relations, and the highest purposes thereof; that they have always since their said marriage conducted themselves toward one another with decency and propriety, kindness and love, respect and confidence, at the same time having due regard for each other's dignity and self-esteem, and each of them, husband and wife, have always understood and appreciated their respective duties under their marital contract and relations, and have always comported themselves in accordance therewith, to the end that they should continue to command the respect, esteem, love, confidence, and good will and admiration of each other and of their immediate friends and neighbors, and of all good citizens of this state, with whom they might associate, or who might take occasion to inquire of their standing and relations; that the husband Doc McDavid, has always been the bread winner in his said family, and as such has always performed any and all duties incumbent upon him as a husband and father, without the slightest interference on the part of the said R. L. McDavid, his wife, always having due regard, however, for any advice, counsel, or suggestion she might see fit to volunteer; that he is a school teacher by occupation and profession, and as such has always been able to provide for his said wife and family in a manner consistent with his own and their station in life; that for the past seven or eight years the wife, R. L. McDavid, has been an invalid, but she has nevertheless, always maintained her dignity and self-respect as a woman, and performed all and every duty incumbent upon her as a wife and in connection with her household affairs, and has never sought to assume control or dominion of any nature whatsoever over her husband or his affairs, but, on the contrary, has always conducted herself with due regard, love, admiration, and respect for her said husband, and as his helpmate and companion in life, and they, the said plaintiffs, and each of them, have always obeyed the command of love, esteem, and honor each the other, and their married life has been mutually happy, dignified, and felicitous, nor have they or either of them up to the time of the writing, publishing, and circulation of the false, scandalous, and malicious libel hereinafter set out been guilty, or suspected to have been guilty, of pursuing towards each other any course of conduct except such as would necessarily have commanded from each other and their neighbors and friends the highest esteem, confidence, respect, and admiration, nor has the said Mrs. R. L. McDavid, wife of Doc McDavid, ever been a `manly' woman, or sought in any manner to conquer her husband in a desire to `rule or ruin,' nor has she ever been guilty of or suspected to have been guilty of any act but such as would be the act of a modest, virtuous, and refined lady, but, on the contrary, she has always been, and such has been her reputation among those who know her best, a modest, virtuous, and refined lady, and a respectful, loving and dutiful wife, and she has always and upon all occasions conducted herself as such; that up to the time of the writing, publishing, and circulation of the said false, defamatory, and malicious libel hereinafter mentioned she has always borne the reputation, name, credit, and fame of being a model wife, and a virtuous, refined, modest, dignified, and pious lady.

"Plaintiffs allege that, before the writing, publishing, and circulation of the said false, scandalous, and malicious libel hereinafter mentioned, they were used to live quietly and happily together, and to enjoy great happiness and comfort in their married state; that the defendant, acting by and through its servants, employés and agents, well knowing the premises, but contriving and maliciously intending to prejudice, degrade, and injure the plaintiff and each of them, in their good name, fame, credit, and reputation, and to hold up and expose the said plaintiffs and their family to public infamy, hatred, contempt, and ridicule, and to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, and reputation and to destroy the domestic peace and happiness of the said plaintiff and their family, did, on or about the 5th day of October, A. D. 1910, by and through its agents, servants, and employés, and through the medium of the Houston Chronicle & Herald, a daily paper owned, published, and circulated by the defendant, falsely, scandalously, and maliciously write, publish, and circulate and cause and procure to be written, published, and circulated, a certain false, scandalous, and malicious libel of and concerning the said plaintiffs and each of them, containing therein the false, scandalous, defamatory, and opprobrious matter following of and concerning the said plaintiffs, their family, and each of them, viz.:

"`Husband makes a poetic plea in answer to divorce suit' (meaning thereby that Chas. H. Fischer, the husband of the daughter of plaintiffs herein—i. e., Mrs. Leora Alice Allison —makes poetic plea in answer to divorce suit of the said Mrs. Allison, then Leora Alice Fischer).

"`He likes his job as "Lone sentinel between the wife and child of a former marriage and a rugged old world." Lunch money and red kimona caused trouble.

"`Just what happens when a wife wants to be a "manly woman" is so pathetically set forth in an answer to a petition...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hughes v. New England Newspaper Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 9 Septiembre 1942
    ...331; Shelby v. Sun Printing & Publishing Association, 38 Hun 474; Hall v. Huffman, 159 Ky. 72, 166 S.W. 770;McDavid v. Houston Chronicle Printing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W. 252. Am.Law Inst.Restatement: Torts, § 564, comment e. This principle is not applicable where, as here, the natural e......
  • Gibler v. Houston Post Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 23 Enero 1958
    ...it was impossible in such case to identify the plaintiff as the subject of the libel in question. In the case of McDavid v. Houston Chronicle Printing Co., 146 S.W. 252, 260, no writ history, in which the Austin Court of Civil Appeals reversed and rendered the judgment of the trial court, s......
  • Lee v. Weston
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 26 Marzo 1980
    ...331; Shelby v. Sun Printing & Publishing Association, 38 Hun 474; Hall v. Huffman, 159 Ky. 72, 166 S.W. 770; McDavid v. Houston Chronicle Printing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W. 252. Am.Law Inst. Restatement; Torts, § 564, comment e. This principle is not applicable where, as here, the natural......
  • Evans v. Houston Printing Corporation, 12022.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 2 Diciembre 1948
    ...v. Foster, Tex.Com.App., 53 S.W.2d 1014; Moore v. Leverett, Tex.Com.App., 52 S.W. 2d 252, at page 255; McDavid v. Houston Chronicle Printing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W. 252, at page 260; 27 Tex.Jur., p. 751, par. 84, foot-note 17, and cited cases; and Ferguson v. Houston Press Co., Tex.Civ.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT