Prins v. Holland-North America Mortg. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 May 1919
• Docket Number: 14869.
• Citation: 107 Wash. 206,181 P. 680
• Parties: PRINS v. HOLLAND-NORTH AMERICA MORTGAGE CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

181 P. 680

107 Wash. 206

PRINS v. HOLLAND-NORTH AMERICA MORTGAGE CO.

No. 14869.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 28, 1919

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Frater, Judge.

Action by R. Prins against the Holland-North America Mortgage Company. From Judgment of dismissal with prejudice, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Fred W Catlett, of Seattle, for appellant.

Ballinger Battle, Hulbert & Shorts, of Seattle, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The action is for libel. The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the kingdom of the Netherlands, having its principal office at Gorinchem therein. It is engaged in the business of loaning money on first mortgage security. It has a branch office at Seattle, in this state, of which the plaintiff was formerly sole manager, and at the time of the publication claimed to be libelous was co-manager with one Wabeke. The publication complained of is a letter written by the defendant at its main office and sent to its branch office at Seattle. The letter was written in the Dutch language, and, as translated in the complaint, reads as follows:

'Gorinchem, Oct. 17, 1916.

'Holland-North America Mortgage Co., Seattle--Gentlemen No. 65. The accountant has finished the profit and loss account over the first half year. The result is very regrettable, as you can see from inclosed copy. The profit only amounts to Fl. 895.10. This bad result must be ascribed wholly and totally to the little activity in the investing of the moneys in America during the first half year.

'If a considerable amount is not very soon placed on first mortgage, the loss by Dec. 31 next will be considerable. Nearly the total amount of the issue is yet to be loaned out; this causes us loss of interest of nearly 4% per annum, and this is the cause of the big loss we now have to expect. It looks to us that, although there are many good deals that could have been made, we have failed to have a good organization. De Noord Amerikaasche Hyp. Bank at Leeuwarden, which has placed this year a considerable greater amount of bonds than we have, is now again advertising that it is selling 5 1/2% bonds. This it certainly would not do, if it still had considerable sums for investment.

'We trust, however, that our business is now being conducted with a firm hand in the right path, and we soon shall receive reports about investments. With very great interest we are looking forward to this.

'Respectfully,

'Holland-Noord Amerika Hypotheekbank,

'(Copy.) F. Fernhout--B. Cool.'

The letter was received at the branch office at Seattle in due course, and was read by Wabeke and a bookkeeper in the office, both of whom understood the Dutch language. No other publication of the libel is set forth in the complaint.

In his complaint the plaintiff set forth his relation with the defendant, his sole management of the business in America during the period spoken of in the letter, averred that the letter was written with malice, that it was false and defamatory, and by innuendo sought to show that it charged him with neglect of duty, want of capacity, and breach of trust, and hence was per se libelous.

To the complaint the defendant interposed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained. The appellant elected to stand upon the complaint, whereupon the court entered a judgment of dismissal with prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed.

The ground upon which the trial court rested its judgment does not appear in the record. It would seem, however, that the judgment can be justified on any one of several grounds. Since we have concluded there was no publication of the libel, within the meaning of the rule relating to such publications, this is the only question we shall discuss.

Publication of a libel is the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person or persons. Here the communication was sent from the main office of the company to its branch office. Until the appellant himself spread the letter broadcast to the world, it does not appear from the complaint that it was exhibited to any one other than the officers and employés of the respondent company, whose very duties, in the conduct of the ordinary business of the company, brought them in contact with it. Agents and employés of this character are not third persons in their relations to the corporation, within the meaning of the laws pertaining to the publication of libels. For the time being, they are a part and parcel of the corporation itself, so much so, indeed, that their acts within the limits of their employment are the acts of the corporation. For a corporation, therefore, acting through one of its agents or representatives, to send a libelous communication to another of its agents or representatives, cannot be a publication of the...