Wall v. World Pub. Co., 35931

• Decision Date: 24 November 1953
• Docket Number: No. 35931,35931
• Citation: 263 P.2d 1010
• Parties: WALL v. WORLD PUB. CO.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 1010

263 P.2d 1010

1953 OK 348

WALL v. WORLD PUB. CO.

No. 35931.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 24, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1953.

Syllabus by the Court

An invitation by a newspaper to its readers to write letters on matters of public interest is not an offer to publish all letters received by it in response to the invitation in the absence of an express promise to publish same.

Baker Wall, Sallisaw, for plaintiff in error.

Byron V. Boone, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

ARNOLD, Justice.

Plaintiff Baker Wall brought this suit for damages for breach of contract against the defendant World Publishing Company in the District Court of Tulsa County. The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's petition and he elected to stand on his petition and brings his appeal from the order sustaining demurrer.

In his petition plaintiff alleges that he is an American citizen and resides in Sallisaw, Sequoyah County; that defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Oklahoma and publishing a daily newspaper, The Tulsa World, at Tulsa; that plaintiff is a reader and a subscriber of said newspaper; that defendant in the columns of said newspaper made an offer to the public to publish their letters expressing their views on public questions as follows:

'Please keep your letters as short as possible--due to space limitations, it is impossible to publish lengthy communications. Letters sent to The Tulsa World 'Voice of a Free People' column cannot be returned. All letters must be signed and the address of the writer given; initials will be used in publication, however, if the writer so requests.'

That on September 30, 1952, plaintiff sent by mail a letter properly addressed to Voice of a Free People, Tulsa World, Tulsa, Oklahoma; that said letter conformed to the conditions stated in the invitation to send in letter above quoted; that plaintiff expected that said letter would be published in said newspaper within a reasonable time; that defendant arbitrarily failed, neglected and refused to publish said letter in accordance with its promise and offer; that said defendant is a Republican newspaper; that said newspaper unfairly discriminates against all Democrats and the Democratic party in general; that defendant accepts the subsidy of the United States government in transmitting its newspapers to its subscribers as second class mail at a cost to the government of the United States in excess of the amount paid by defendant by transmission of said newspapers through the United States mail; that plaintiff is taxed by his country for benefit of the defendant on the theory that defendant would justly and fairly transmit information of every kind fairly and impartially to all of its readers; that the proffer of defendant to publish plaintiff's letter and plaintiff's...