De Senancour v. Societe La Prevoyance
| Decision Date | 04 May 1888 |
| Parties | DE S'NANCOUR v. SOCI'T' LA PR'VOYANCE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
E.B. Goodsell, for plaintiff.
By the report of the case it is found on the evidence as a fact that the committee's report or document "contained libelous or defamatory references to the plaintiff's character," and this court will not revise such finding. Sheffield v. Otis, 107 Mass. 282; Churchill v Palmer, 115 Mass. 310. The investigation committee was appointed not by the officers of the defendant society alone but that committee was appointed by the officers and the society acting together at a regular meeting of the society and had as full power respecting the matter of their appointment as directors or officers of any corporation; the latter being liable for the acts of their servants in the same manner and to the same extent as individuals are liable under like circumstances. Maynard v. Insurance Co., 34 Cal. 48; Bank v. Bank, 10 Wall. 604; Com. v. Morgan, 107 Mass. 199. It is not necessary that the investigation committee should have been "specifically directed or authorized by any vote or regulation of the society to make their vote in print." Moore v. Railroad Corp., 4 Gray, 465; Whitfield v. Railway Co., El., Bl. & El. 115; Bank v. Graham, 100 U.S. 702; Townsh. Sland. & Lib. (3d Ed.) § 122. The report shows that the defendant, knowing what the committee had accomplished, adopted and ratified the acts of that committee. Kelley v. Railroad Co., 141 Mass. 496, 6 N.E. 745; Exchange Co. v. Drew, 2 Macq.H.L.Cas. 103; Goodrich v. Stone, 11 Metc. 486. Allowing the investigation committee's report to go from the defendant society into the hands of the compositor is prima facie publication. Baldwin v. Elphinston, 2 W.Bl. 1037; Watts v. Fraser, 7 Adol. & E. 223. The distribution of the investigation committee's report among the members of the defendant society was a publication. Wenman v. Ash, 13 C.B. 839; Rex v. Amphlit, 4 Barn. & C. 35; Williamson v. Freer, L.R. 9 C.P. 393. The defendant adopted the report, and ratified the acts as set forth in the report of the case. Railroad Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202. It is respectfully submitted that the court erred in ruling that the defendant could not, upon the facts stated in the report of the case, be held responsible for the publication of the libel. Id.; Com. v. Morgan, 107 Mass. 199; Miller v. Butler, 6 Cush. 71; Reg. v. Cooper, 8 Q.B. 533. No claim of justification or excuse or privileged communication was raised at the trial, no reference is made to any such matter in the report of the case, and it cannot be considered open. Gardner v. Hazelton, 121 Mass. 494; Doherty v. Munson, 127 Mass. 495; Kennedy v. Owen, 131 Mass. 431; Butterworth v. Assurance Co., 132 Mass. 489; Perry v. Porter, 124 Mass. 340; O'Brien v. Clement, 15 Mees. & W. 437; Bromage v. Prosser, 4 Barn. & C. 247. The facts as set forth in the reports of the case in respect to the count in the plaintiff's declaration for libel are, it is respectfully submitted, sufficient in law to maintain action thereon. Perry v. Porter, 124 Mass. 338; Lothrop v. Adams, 133 Mass. 478; Twombly v. Monroe, 136 Mass. 468; Dole v. Lyon, 10 Johns. 450; Lawless v. Oil Co., L.R. 4 Q.B. 262; Levi v. Milne, 4 Bing. 195; Whitfield v. Railway Co., El.Bl. & El. 115; Curtis v. Mussey, 6 Gray, 261.
C.J. Noyes, E.B. Callender, and Louis Girardin, for defendant.
The rulings of the superior court were correct. As regards the pretended libel, the society could not be held liable for the same. The report was a privileged communication, and, unless made with malice, could give the plaintiff no right of action against the members of the committee. Kirkpatrick v. Lodge, 26 Kan. 384; Shurtleff v. Stevens, 51 Vt. 501. If the committee is not liable, a fortiori, the society or corporation cannot be held. Societies have a right to acquaint their members with information as regards the actions or disqualifications of other members, and to investigate the same. As regards religious societies, see Farnsworth v. Storrs, 5 Cush. 412. As regards medical societies, see Barrows v. Bell, 7 Gray, 301. Nor can the plaintiff claim that the defendant published said libel by reason of the printing by the committee, for a corporation is liable only for those acts of its agents which are done within the scope of the authority granted them; and the report in this case states that the court found, as a matter of fact, "that the committee on investigation were not specially directed or authorized by any vote or regulation of the society to make their report in print." Even if the committee were so directed or authorized to report in print, the society could not be held liable, unless it published the same to the world, or preserved the report for others than members of the society to read. Railroad Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202; Lawless v. Oil Co., L.R. 4 Q.B. 262, 38 Law J.Q.B. 129. The plaintiff's membership in the defendant society did not cease by reason of the vote expelling him. The proceedings were irregular, and therefore void. The plaintiff was entitled to legal notice of the meeting, and an opportunity of being heard in his own defense before the society. Ang. & A. Corp. (2d Ed.) c. 12, pp. 459-469. In Com. v. German Soc., 15 Pa.St. 251, the court ruled that "it is irregular to expel a member on a report of a committee of investigation without giving him an opportunity to be heard in his defense before the society at large; and the return to a mandamus must show that the relator had notice to appear and defend himself." See Hirs.Frat. & Soc. tit. "Expulsion," pp. 57-60. The plaintiff, therefore, was still a member of the defendant society, and suffered no detriment by the vote of expulsion; and, being such a member, the certificate of insurance was not annulled. He therefore must fail on the first two counts of his declaration, and on all points the decision of the superior court was right.
OPINION
The defendant corporation appointed a committee to investigate certain bills presented by the plaintiff, without specially directing or authorizing them by any vote or regulation of the corporation to make their report in print; and, in the absence of any usage to that effect, there was no express or implied authority to the committee to make...
To continue reading
Request your trial