Mitchell v. Bradstreet Co.
Decision Date | 02 May 1893 |
Citation | 22 S.W. 358,116 Mo. 226 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | MITCHELL et al. v. BRADSTREET CO.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; L. B. Valliant, Judge.
Action by James Mitchell and others against the Bradstreet Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Boyle & Adams and Geo. R. Lockwood, for appellant. Harvey & Hill, for respondents.
Action for libel. On the 25th day of November, 1889, and prior thereto, the plaintiffs were partners, engaged in the mercantile business in the town of Sugar Loaf, Clebourne county, Ark., under the firm name and style of Mitchell, Smith & Co. The plaintiffs kept a general store their stock consisting of such goods as are usually carried by country merchants. While thus engaged the defendant, duly organized, and doing business in St. Louis, Mo., and conducting a mercantile agency under the name of the Bradstreet Company, on the date aforesaid published of and concerning the plaintiffs the following language and accusation, to wit: "Mitchell, Smith & Co., of Sugar Loaf, Arkansas, G. S., assigned." The petition alleges that the publication was false, and claims special damages for injuries sustained to their credit in various ways, and with different ones of their patrons and customers. The material part of the answer of defendant is as follows: The proof tends to show that plaintiffs were the only firm at the date aforesaid doing business in Sugar Loaf under the said name of Mithell, Smith & Co.; that at the time of said publication they were doing a large credit business with farmers, and were dependent upon their good standing and credit among merchants at St. Louis and elsewhere as a means of conducting and carrying on their said business; that at the time of said publication, owing to the partial failure of the cotton crops in their section of the country, they were unable to collect in full debts due to them, and were dependent upon their credit and standing among their creditors as a means of successfully prosecuting their said business. They were somewhat indebted at the time of the publication to parties in the city of St. Louis, but their assets were ample to meet and pay all of their liabilities had their credit and standing among their said creditors been unimpaired by the publication aforesaid. Up to the time of said publication the creditors of the respondents were resting satisfied, and the business of respondents was being pursued in a safe and comparatively prosperous manner. The proof also shows that the publication complained of was through the medium of what is known as "Bradstreet's Sheet," a daily paper published by defendant in the city of St. Louis, and circulated among the merchants of said city and surrounding states. It is also shown that the defendant was notified in a day or two after said publication that the same was false, but it declined, or failed in the subsequent issue of its said sheet, to retract or apologize, or make any explanation of said publication. The proof shows that plaintiffs, prior to said publication, had good credit in the city of St. Louis, — that is, credit to an extent commensurate with all their necessities; but on the coming out of said publication their creditors became restless, some of them placing their claims in the hands of attorneys, some writing urgent letters, and one stopping goods in transit, while others in St. Louis became exceedingly apprehensive, and by their repeated inquiries at the office of Hill, Fontaine & Co., plaintiffs' principal creditor, compelled the latter to take urgent steps upon their claim, resulting in plaintiffs' sale of their property at a sacrifice, the suspension of their business, and injury of their credit.
At the close of plaintiffs' evidence, defendant asked the following instruction: "The court instructs the jury that, under the pleadings and evidence, plaintiffs are not entitled to recover in this action, and you will therefore find for defendant." The court refused to give this instruction, to which refusal defendant duly excepted. At the close of the whole case defendant asked the following six instructions, to wit: All of which instructions the court refused to give, to which refusal the defendant then and there at the time duly excepted. The court then, of its own motion, gave the following instruction: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sluder v. St. Louis Transit Co.
...involved; that case going off on the humanitarian doctrine. The Karle Case was also cited in Mitchell v. Bradstreet Co., 116 Mo. 247, 22 S. W. 358, 724, 20 L. R. A. 138, 38 Am. St. Rep. 592, but not upon the point here involved, for there was no such ordinance involved in that case. The Kar......
-
Cook v. Globe Printing Company of St. Louis
...Geo. Knapp & Co., 109 Mo. 131, 18 S.W. 1134. Libel. "Bribery." Demurrer to petition sustained. Reversed and remanded. Mitchell v. Bradstreet Co., 116 Mo. 226, 22 S.W. 358. "Assigned" -- said of a commercial firm. Judgment for plaintiff for $ 5500. Affirmed. Callahan v. Ingram, 122 Mo. 355, ......
-
HE Crawford Company v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
...Cf. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n, 8 Cir., 1936, 82 F.2d 115, 118; Mitchell v. Bradstreet Co., 1893, 116 Mo. 226, 239-242, 22 S.W. 358, 362, 20 L.R.A. 138; McKenzie v. Denver Times Publishing Co., 1893, 3 Colo.App. 554, 556-558, 34 P. 577; Broadway v. Cope, 1......
-
Hood v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
...v. Warfield, 211 Ky. 576, 277 S.W. 862 (1925); Retail Credit Co. v. Garraway, 240 Miss. 230, 126 So.2d 271 (1961); Mitchell v. Bradstreet Co., 116 Mo. 226, 22 S.W. 358 (1893); Restatement of Courts § 595 (1938); W. Prosser, Law of Torts 790 (4 Ed. 1970); Comment, Protecting the Subjects of ......