R.J. Todd Co. v. Bradstreet Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1925
• Citation: R.J. Todd Co. v. Bradstreet Co., 253 Mass. 138, 148 N.E. 369 (Mass. 1925)
• Parties: R. J. TODD CO. v. BRADSTREET CO.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

253 Mass. 138

148 N.E. 369

R. J. TODD CO.

v.BRADSTREET CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 29, 1925.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Frederick W. Fosdick, Judge.

Action of tort by the R. J. Todd Company against the Bradstreet Company for libel in giving plaintiff a rating in defendant's book of commercial ratings. Verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.

A. W. Blakemore, of Boston, for plaintiff.

P. B. Buzzell, of Boston, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

This is an action of tort for libel in giving to the plaintiff a rating in its book of commercial ratings. The plaintiff is a corporation engaged since 1902 in the wholesale hardware business. The defendant operates a mercantile credit agency. It issues quarterly a book containing credit ratings of persons engaged in business throughoutthe country, which it loans only to its subscribers under a written contract whereby each subscriber agrees to hold all information furnished by it in strict confidence and not to ask for information for use of others. As each new issue of the book is delivered to subscribers, the old is returned to the defendant and destroyed.

The plaintiff alleged in its declaration that it was in the hardware business, was financially sound, deserving of credit, and paid its bills with reasonable promptness; that the defendant is the proprietor of the commercial publication known as ‘Bradstreet's'; that therein it published ‘certain false and malicious statements in various forms to the effect that this plaintiff had been in the past and still was slow in meeting its business obligations, was of low financial rating, and was undeserving of any credit’; and that in consequence the plaintiff ‘has been greatly damaged in its reputation, that its credit has been destroyed,’ and its opportunity for profits seriously curtailed.

At the trial the plaintiff did not contend that there was express malice on the part of the defendant, but did contend that the statement of rating was false and negligently made.

The evidence showed that the defendant in its book had printed opposite the plaintiff's name the letters TE and had given it by the use of these letters the same rating since 1905, but gave it no rating subsequent to April, 1921. There was no evidence of any statement made by the defendant concerning the plaintiff other than the printing of these letters opposite its name. The names listed in the defendant's book were graded and characterized by distinguishing letters. Estimated wealth was indicated by letters beginning with G and ending with Z. The letter T signified an estimated wealth of from $10,000 to $20,000. There was no evidence that during the period here in question the plaintiff was of greater wealth than thus indicated. The allegation as to ‘low financial rating’ therefore is unsupported and is laid to one side.

Manifestly it was no wrong to the plaintiff to publish the truth as to its estimated wealth. Hence the case is narrowed to the question whether the plaintiff offered evidence in support of its other allegations that the defendant has printed of it that it ‘was slow in meeting its business obligations' and was ‘undeserving of any credit.’ The case hinges on the grade of credit E given to the plaintiff. On a page in the front of each of the defendant's books was a ‘key’ and ‘notes.’ The ‘key’ consists of nineteen differing sums of estimated wealth, varying from those having $1,000,000 or more to those having from nothing to $500. The ‘key’ contains opposite each letter signifying estimated wealth three other letters, indicating ‘Grades of Credit, 1st, 2d, 3d.’ Opposite the estimated wealth of from $10,000 to $20,000, indicated by T, are the letters C, D, E, indicating respectively the first, second, and third grades of credit for such business concerns. The ‘notes' on this page in the front of the book are explanatory of the ‘key.’ It there is stated:

‘Between capital and credit there is always a relative proportion. Capital is the foundation, while character, ability and circumstance govern, qualify and create credit. The recognition of all these factors is necessary to an intelligent determination and assignment of each and every grade of credit. The first grade opposite the ‘Estimated Wealth’ (as set forth in the key) indicates that the means and credit are in relative proportion; that is to say, the credit indicated by ‘Aa’ represents the highest assigned with estimated wealth of more than $500,000; ‘A’ the highest for the estimate of $150,000 to $500,000; ‘B’ the highest for $35,000 to $150,000; ‘C’ the highest for $5,000 to $35,000; ‘D’ the highest for $1,000 to $5,000; and ‘E’ the highest for $1,000 or less. The several grades (first, second, and third) of credit are intended to reflect the information of record in our office.'

In one of the answers to interrogatories which were put in evidence, the defendant had replied...