Wallace v. Homestead Co.
Decision Date | 31 May 1902 |
Citation | 90 N.W. 835,117 Iowa 348 |
Parties | WALLACE v. HOMESTEAD CO. ET AL. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Polk county; S. F. Prouty, Judge.
Action for libel. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.N. T. Guernsey, for appellants.
Carr & Parker and Cummins, Hewitt & Wright, for appellee.
The petition, which is in two counts, is based upon alleged libelous publications printed in an agricultural paper known as the Homestead in its issue of October 8, 1897, and a second publication of practically the same matter in an issue of February 18, 1898. The first publication reads as follows: The defendant pleaded a settlement, justification, privilege, and certain matters in mitigation which will be hereinafter referred to. On the issues as they were finally formed the case was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appellants rely for a reversal on certain rulings of the trial court with reference to the issue of settlement, to the defendants' plea in mitigation, to motions to strike the plea in justification, and to a counterclaim pleaded by defendants. These matters will be disposed of in the order stated, and first the matter of settlement.
1. It appears that prior to the first publication complained of, plaintiff, defendant James M. Pierce, and one Stewart, who were the owners of the Homestead and other properties, had had difficulties regarding the management of these properties, and were involved in a great deal of litigation. Some of these cases reached this court. See 101 Iowa, 313, 70 N. W. 216, 38 L. R. A. 122, 63 Am. St. Rep. 389. At the time the first libel was published there were 15 or more suits pending, in which these parties, or some of them, were interested, either as plaintiffs or defendants. On the day of the publication these parties entered into a preliminary agreement of settlement and compromise, which was fully consummated on November 10, 1897, after an additional agreement had been entered into on October 29th of the same year. Defendants contend that these agreements and settlements fully discharged and released them from all liability on account of the alleged libel set forth in the first count of the petition. They rely upon the following excerpts from said agreements, which are too long to be set out in extenso:
On the other side it is contended that these stipulations and agreements had no reference whatever to the alleged libel; that they related only to business differences that then existed between the parties, and that the purpose and intent of the agreement was to reach and adjust these differences; and plaintiff relies on substantially the same provisions, claiming that they distinctly show that the compromise was of controversies which in any manner grew out of the differences between Pierce, Wallace, and Stewart as to the affairs of the Homestead Company and allied properties, and nothing else, and this further provision of these agreements: “Whereas, James M. Pierce, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Samuel F. Stewart, of Evanston, Ills., are negotiating with Henry Wallace, of Des Moines, Iowa, for the purchase of certain property, and for the adjustment and settlement of certain differences between themselves and others, and for the settlement of a number of pending suits; and whereas, the parties have completed certain preliminary negotiationswith reference to the said matters, by which they have formulated a statement containing a description of the property which is made the subject of said negotiations, and setting out the controversies which it is proposed to settle and compromise, and fixing the manner in which the said transaction is to be completed in the event that the parties agree upon the consideration to be paid by the said Pierce and Stewart to the said Wallace: Now,” etc. Looking to the purpose of the agreement as expressed in the instruments themselves, and applying the generally accepted canons of construction thereto, we think it fairly appears that there was no thought of the parties that they were making settlement of the alleged libel. These rules of construction may be stated as follows: “One of the rules of interpretation most frequently referred to is to the effect that the intention must be determined by a consideration of the whole instrument, rather than by any clause; the theory being that the parties presumably had the same purpose and object in view in all parts of the instrument; and, consequently, if some of the stipulations are more obscure than others, or one part is seemingly inconsistent with another, the main purpose and object as collected from the whole instrument may be so clear and distinct as to throw light upon some obscure or inconsistent parts.” Again: 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) pp. 4, 6, and cases cited. There was, as it seems to us, no thought in the minds of the parties that they were settling any claims for libel. As the article was printed the same day on which the preliminary agreement was made, it is hardly to be believed that the parties had it in mind to settle any claims for damages for libel by the use of such statements as appeared in these agreements.
2. The defendants' plea in mitigation of damages was as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial