Reporters' Ass'n of America v. Sun Printing & Publ'g Ass'n

• Decision Date: 18 December 1906
• Citation: 79 N.E. 710,186 N.Y. 437
• Parties: REPORTERS' ASS'N OF AMERICA v. SUN PRINTING & PUBLISHING ASS'N.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

186 N.Y. 437

79 N.E. 710

REPORTERS' ASS'N OF AMERICA

v.SUN PRINTING & PUBLISHING ASS'N.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 18, 1906.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by the Reporters' Association of America against the Sun Printing & Publishing Association. From a judgment affirming a judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint (98 N. Y. Supp. 294,112 App. Div. 246), defendant appeals. Reversed.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover damages for an alleged libelous publication in the Sun, a newspaper published in the city of New York by the defendant. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a domestic corporation, engaged in the collection and distribution of news items and the publication of a magazine. It sets forth the following matter as having been published in the Sun, ‘concerning the Newsboys' Company and Newboys' Magazine,’ namely:

‘Roosevelt Called Police-And Got Back His Letter from Newsboy Employees. Blue Pencil Grafters Have Exchanged Mendicancy for Peddling Certificates of Stock in Philanthropic Plant. $250,000 to Sell. Watch Your Check Book.’

‘Chief Sylvester made a careful examination of the Newsboys' Company and had its agents shadowed all over the country.’

‘That many in the concern, among them a woman, had police records.’

‘The chief of police probably has these records still.’

It is then alleged that in the same article the following appeared, namely:

‘Washington has been fruitful of checks until this, but thereafter the activity was transferred to this city. The beggars have been busy here ever since. Subscription lists seem to have been exchanged among the ‘Press Artists' League,’ the ‘Reporters' Association of America,’ ‘The Interstate Press,’ and a score of other concerns organized for the same purpose, because the canvassers have always seemed to hit on the same easy marks. One lawyer's check book shows that since last March he has received visits from representatives of all these concerns.'

The innuendo in the complaint is ‘that the mention of the plaintiff in the publication was made with the malicious intent to defame it’ and to lead the public to believe that it was engaged in the same practices as the article had mentioned in connection with the Newsboys' Company. It is then further alleged that the publication is wholly false ‘and has caused to this plaintiff a serious loss in business, the refusal by clients to pay the just claims due by contract, and has greatly damaged the said plaintiff in credit and reputation, all in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).’ The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. At the Special Term the demurrer was overruled, and upon appeal to the Appellate Division that order was affirmed. The affirmance was by a divided court, and thereafter leave was given to appeal to this court; this question of law being certified to us: ‘Does the amended complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?’Franklin Bartlett, for appellant.

A. P. Bachman, for respondent.

GRAY, J. (after stating the facts).

The sufficiency of this complaint depends upon its allegation of the special damage, which the plaintiff claims to have sustained from the alleged libelous publication. That a corporation poration has the right to maintain an action of libel, when the publication assails its management or credit, and inflicts injury upon its business or property, is a proposition which is true upon principle and which has the support of authority. See Newell on Slander and Libel, p. 360, and cases cited. It is as much entitled to the protection of the law in those respects as is the natural person. It differs from the latter, in that it has no character to be affected by a libel; but its right to be protected against false and malicious statements affecting its credit or property should be beyond question. There has been some dispute in the cases as to the necessity of setting out the specific damage which a corporation claims to have suffered from a libelous publication; but I regard the better rule to be that such an averment is not necessary, when the language is of so defamatory a nature as to directly affect credit and to occasion pecuniary injury. See Shoe & Leather Bank v. Thompson, 18 Abb. Pr. 413;Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Ecclesine, clesine, 34 N. Y. Super. Ct. 76;Union Assoc. Press v. Heath, 49 App. Div. 247,63 N. Y. Supp. 96;Trenton, etc., Ins. Co. v. Perrine, 23 N. J. Law, 402, 67 Am. Dec. 400. In the present case the learned justices of the Appellate Division are in accord that this publication is not libelous per se, and, as I think, correctly. It may well be that the Newsboys' Company and Newsboys' Magazine, which are spoken of in the earlier part of the article, might complain of its language; but, as it was observed below, ‘what is said with respect to the Newsboys' Magazine as to ‘grafters' and ‘police,’ and ‘police records,’ cannot be said to legitimately refer to this plaintiff.' There is no other association of this plaintiff with the Newsboys' Company and Magazine, nor other implication of similarity in practices and in police repute, than what may be found from both having been spoken of in the course of the article, and it would be going further than common sense allows to infer from that circumstance a necessary connection in disreputable practices. The portion of the article referring to the plaintiff, clearly, is not libelous per se. What does it import to say that ‘subscription lists seem to have been exchanged among the ‘Press Artists' League,’ the ‘Reporters' Association of America,’ ‘The Interstate Press' and a score of other concerns organized for the same purpose, because the canvassers have always seemed to hit on the same...