Republican Newspaper Co. v. Northwestern Associated Press

• Decision Date: 19 July 1892
• Docket Number: 104.
• Citation: 51 F. 377
• Parties: REPUBLICAN NEWSPAPER CO. OF OMAHA v. NORTHWESTERN ASSOCIATED PRESS.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

51 F. 377

REPUBLICAN NEWSPAPER CO. OF OMAHA v. NORTHWESTERN ASSOCIATED PRESS.

No. 104.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

July 19, 1892

Ralph W. Breckenridge, for plaintiff in error.

E. W Simeral, R. S. Hall, and C. J. Green, for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and SHIRAS, District judge.

SHIRAS District Judge.

The Republican Newspaper Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Nebraska, became, about the 1st of July, 1890, the owner of the plant and property of the Omaha Republican, a newspaper founded in 1858, and published in the city of Omaha, by purchase from J. C. Wilcox, the former owner thereof, who became the president of the corporation and continued in the active control of the publication of the newspaper. As part of the property included in the transfer there passed to the corporation a membership or one share in the Northwestern Associated Press, a corporation created under the laws of the state of Illinois, and formed mainly for the purpose of procuring and distributing telegraphic and other news reports. Shortly after the transfer above stated and about the 30th of July, 1890, the publication of the Republican was suspended until December 12, 1890, when it was renewed, and continued until January 8, 1891, when it again ceased, and has not been since resumed. On September 24, 1890, the executive committee of the Associated Press held a meeting at Chicago, Ill., and, without notice to the Republican Newspaper Company, canceled the stock of the Omaha Republican, upon the theory that the suspension of the publication of the newspaper terminated the rights of the shareholder, and justified the cancellation of the stock; and this action of the committee was approved at a called meeting of the association held in Chicago, December 19, 1890. Since the action taken by the executive committee in September, 1890, no telegraphic dispatches or other news reports have been furnished to the Republican Company, and its right to be considered a member of the Associated Press has been wholly denied. On the 10th of January, 1891, this action was brought in the United States circuit court for the district of Nebraska by the Republican Newspaper Company to recover the value of the franchise or membership in said Associated Press, of which it claimed it had been deprived, and had been thereby damaged in the sum of $50,000. The case was heard before the court and jury at the November term, 1891, and a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff in the action, assessing the damages at $802.50. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the ground that the damages awarded were wholly inadequate and without support in the evidence, and that the court had erred in admitting improper evidence, and in rejecting competent evidence offered by plaintiff, on the subject of the damages. The motion for new trial was overruled, and judgment was entered on the verdict, and the plaintiff brings the case to this court by a writ of error, assigning as grounds for reversal the ruling of the court in admitting and rejecting evidence upon the question of the damages caused to plaintiff by the wrongful action of defendant. As the case stands, upon the record in this court, it is settled by the verdict and judgment that the plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of its membership in the defendant company, and by the cancellation of the share of stock owned by it plaintiff has been damaged to the value of the stock, or 'franchise,' as it is called in the testimony.

Under these circumstances, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the value of the stock or franchise of which it had been deprived, and to that end it was sought to introduce evidence showing that after the suspension of the newspaper in July, 1890, offers had been made for the purchase of the franchise, and showing the number of proposed purchasers and amounts offered by them, which testimony was rejected, and exceptions to the ruling were duly taken. As we understand the issues in the case, it was error to reject this evidence. By the instructions given the jury, they were required to find the value of the property of which the plaintiff had been wrongfully deprived, and therefore...