Reese v. Haywood

• Decision Date: 01 October 1962
• Docket Number: No. 5-2760,5-2760
• Citation: 235 Ark. 442,360 S.W.2d 488
• Parties: Edward REESE, Appellant, v. R. E. HAYWOOD et al., Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 488

360 S.W.2d 488

235 Ark. 442

Edward REESE, Appellant, v.R. E. HAYWOOD et al., Appellees.

No. 5-2760.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Oct. 1, 1962.

John C. Watkins, Paragould, Ward & Lady, Jonesboro, for appellant.

Kirsch, Cathey & Brown, Paragould, Barrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon, Jonesboro, for appellees.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice.

This is an action by the appellant for libel.At the close of the plaintiff's case the court directed a verdict for the defendants.We have concluded that the peremptory charge was correct, for the reason that the words complained of were not actionable per se and there is no substantial proof of special damages.

In 1955the plaintiff, a farmer, bought about $15,000 worth of farm equipment from the defendant Haywood, doing business as Clay County Implement Company.Reese later returned part of the equipment and contended that there was then a balance of $64 due to him from the seller.This claim was disputed by Haywood, who insisted that Reese owed his company a balance of $213.87.The parties were still in disagreement about the matter at the time of the trial.

In 1959 Haywood referred the account to the other defendants, Frost & Frost, who were engaged in the business of disseminating credit information and collecting delinquent accounts.The Frosts published a monthly periodical, called Credit Information Bulletin, in which they listed thousands of overdue accounts, giving the name and address of each debtor, the name and address of his creditor, and the amount supposedly due.The implement company's claim for $213.87 was so listed in several issues of the Bulletin.These statements appeared in the preface to each issue: 'This information is compiled from reports submitted by our subscribers and is believed to be accurate.To the best of our knowledge it does not include disputed accounts.Nothing in this report is to be construed as an accusation that any debtor listed is unwilling to pay his or her just debt.'

In an early case we discussed the distinction between words that are actionable in themselves and these that are not: 'Where the natural consequence of the words is a damage, as if they import a charge of having been guilty of a crime, or of having a contagious distemper, or if they are prejudicial to a person in office, or to a person or a profession or trade, they are in themselves actionable; in other cases, the party who brings an action for words, must show the damage which was received from them.'Studdard v. Trucks, 31 Ark. 726.

Damage is not necessarily a natural consequence of the publication of the bare...