Smith v. Bradstreet Co.

• Decision Date: 16 April 1902
• Citation: Smith v. Bradstreet Co., 63 S.C. 525, 41 S.E. 763 (S.C. 1902)
• Parties: SMITH v. BRADSTREET CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

41 S.E. 763

63 S.C. 525

SMITH v. BRADSTREET CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 16, 1902

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Charleston county Buchanan, Judge.

Action by Frank M. Smith against the Bradstreet Company. From an order dismissing complaint on demurrer, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Mordecai & Gadsden, for appellant. Smythe, Lee & Frost, for appellee.

POPE J.

When this action came on for trial before his honor Judge Buchanan and a jury, upon reading the complaint the defendant interposed a demurrer in writing on the ground that such complaint fails to "state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that the words set out in the complaint, and alleged to have been uttered by the defendant are not actionable nor libelous per se, nor such as, without more, necessarily imply damage to the plaintiff that it is therefore necessary for the plaintiff not only to prove, but also in his complaint to specifically allege, the special damage which he claims to have suffered, and this he has failed to do." After argument the court said "I do not think the complaint sets out enough here. I do not think it sets out special damages at all. I do not think it is fairly inferable from the complaint that the plaintiff has any cause of action at all. I therefore grant the motion." Then a formal order was made, sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint, with costs. The plaintiff gave notice of appeal therefrom. It thus becomes necessary to set forth the complaint and the grounds of appeal. Omitting the caption, the complaint is as follows:

"The plaintiff above named, complaining of the defendant above named, alleges:

(1) That at the times hereinafter stated the defendant, the Bradstreet Company, was, and still is, a body corporate, duly chartered under the laws of the state of Connecticut, having its principal place of business in the city of New York, in the state of New York.

(2) That the said defendant, the Bradstreet Company, at the times hereinafter mentioned conducted, and still conducts, a mercantile agency in the city of New York, and throughout the United States and Canada; also having offices in the city of Charleston, in said state of South Carolina; and their business then consisted, and still consists, in collecting information as to the credits and financial standing of dealers throughout the country. That the defendant four times a year then published, and still publishes, a book of ratings, called 'Bradstreet's Commercial Reports,' and once in each week a notification sheet, called 'Sheet of Changes and Corrections,' which said weekly notification sheet was at the times hereinafter mentioned distributed, and is still distributed, broadcast throughout the country, partly by mail and partly delivered by messenger; and this plaintiff alleges that it was then, and still is, distributed generally among all subscribers to the defendant's publication, irrespective of their interest in the plaintiff's credit and standing, and that such weekly publication was so generally distributed on the date hereinafter set forth.

(3) That on the 9th day of February, 1898, said defendant, the Bradstreet Company, maliciously composed and published concerning the plaintiff, who was then, and had long previously thereto been, a reputable merchant in good standing and credit in the city of Charleston, state aforesaid, carrying on successfully the business of a pharmacist and druggist in the city of Charleston, state aforesaid, the following false and defamatory matter, under the head of 'Record Items,' in said publication of February 9, 1898, known as the 'Sheet of Changes and Corrections': 'South Carolina, Charleston. Smith, Frank--Druggist. Chattel mortgage, $1,900.'

(4) That said publication was false, and that by reason thereof this plaintiff's business was injured, and this plaintiff was injured in his business reputation, and in his good name and credit as a merchant, to his damage $1,995. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the sum of $1,995."

The grounds of appeal were as follows: "First. Because his honor erred in holding 'that the demurrer be sustained and the complaint be dismissed, with costs.' Second. Because his honor erred in holding 'that it was necessary to set out in the complaint special damages.' Third. Because his honor erred in holding that 'it was not fairly inferable from the complaint that the plaintiff has any cause of action whatever.' Fourth. Because his honor erred in holding 'that the words set out in the complaint, and alleged to have been uttered by the defendant, are not actionable nor libelous per se, nor as such, without more, necessarily imply damage to the plaintiff.' Fifth. Because his honor should have held that, inasmuch as the complaint alleged that the defendant maliciously composed and published the false and defamatory matter, it was not necessary to allege special damage. Sixth. Because his honor erred in holding that it was necessary for the plaintiff not only to prove, but also in his complaint to specifically allege, the special damage which he claims to have suffered, and this he has failed to...