289 510 0. Owen v. Hill, 67 Mich. 43... PAGE PAGE Scribner v. Collar, 40 Mich. 375.. 326 644 P. Patrick v. Howard, 47 Mich. 40-45... 242 Smith v. Shelden, 35 Mich. 48. 469 Sibley v. Bank, 41 Mich. 196.. 314 People v. Judge, 20 Mich. 222. 414 Staal v. Railroad Co., 57 Mich. 239, People v. Kopplekom, 16 Mich. 341.. 552 Stevenson v. Bay City, 26 Mich. 49. 101 Stevenson v. Jackson, 40 Mich. 702. 469 248 469 T. Plano Mfg. Co. v. Ellis, 68 Mich. 101 77 Q. 315 Quincy Mining Co. v. Kitts, 42 Mich. W. THE HANEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY (A CORPORA- Libel and slander-Publication-General and special damages- 1. A partnership is liable for slanderous statements made by one partner, the purpose of which is to aid the partnership business by preventing another party from making sales of an article which the partnership is at the time selling. 2. Words spoken or written injurious to a person in his business, and false and malicious, are actionable per se, and special damages need not be proved. 3. The fact that a plaintiff, in a slander suit, calls the defendant as a witness, who denies any knowledge of the alleged slanderous statements or of their publication, will not, of itself, prevent the plaintiff from proving his case by other witnesses or circumstances, nor will the jury be debarred from drawing the natural and necessary inferences, from facts proven by such other testimony and circumstances, outweighing the positive statements of the defendant. 4. In this case it is held that the facts shown, and offered to be shown, by the plaintiff, raised issues which should have gone to the jury, and that under the evidenc given and offered, which upon this record must be taken as true, the plaintiff was entitled to have the alleged libelous article placed before the jury; and that, under proper instructions, it was a question of fact for their consideration whether its publication was within defendants' knowledge, or whether they were responsible for it. * Continued from Vol. 77. 1 For full digest of points decided, see Table of Cases Reported. 109 264 Error to Kent. (Grove, J.) Argued October 8, 1889. Decided November 15, 1889. Case. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Taggart & Denison, for appellant, contended: 1. Payment to a newspaper, as for an advertisement, is evidence of the adoption of a libel; citing Schenck v. Schenck, 20 N. J. Law, 211; and proof of publication was held sufficient on no stronger circumstances in Bent v. Mink, 46 Iowa, 577-579. 2. Mere silence may be a ratification even if the act was done by a stranger; citing Railroad Co. v. Cowell, 28 Penn. St. 329; Ladd v. Hildebrant, 27 Wis. 135; Mining Co. v. Bank, 2 Col. 262, 263. 3. As to liability of a principal for libelous statement of agent, counsel cited Express Co. v. Fitzner, 59 Miss. 584; Woodling v. Knickerbocker, 31 Minn. 268. 4. Letter press copies of letters, written to parties outside the State, are competent to be introduced as evidence; citing Vinal v. Gilman, 21 W. Va. 313; Elwell v. Mersick, 50 Conn. 276; Beattie v. Hilliard, 55 N. H. 435; Schaefer v. Georgia Railroad, 66 Ga. 44. 5. As to the liability of a partnership for the slanderous words of one member, who is acting manager of the concern, counsel cited Patten v. Gurney, 17 Mass. 182; Lothrop v. Adams, 133 'd. 481; Glass Co. v. Paulk, 83 Ala. 404. Taggart, Wolcott & Ganson, for defendants, contended: 1. In an action for damages caused by alleged libelous statements as to one's business, only special damages can be recovered, that being the gist of the action; citing 2 Add. Torts, § 1143; Pollard v. Lyon, 1 Otto, 225; Swan v. Tappan, 5 Cush. 104; Tobias v. Harland, 4 Wend. 537; Dooling v. Pub. Co., 144 Mass. 258. 2. A joint action for slander cannot be maintained; citing Townsh. · Lib. & Sland. § 118; Webb v. Cecil, 9 B. Mon. 198; Thomas v. Rumsey, 6 Johns. 29-31; 1 Chit. Pl. 85; 2 Add. Torts, § 1140; Starkie, Sland. 448 (*334). LONG, J. This action was brought by the plaintiff, a manufacturing corporation, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by reason of the publication, oral, written, and printed, of the statement that the defendants had brought suit in the United States court against the plaintiff for an infringement of a patent, and had secured an injunction against it, and closed it up, which statements were claimed to be false and malicious. The plaintiff is a manufacturing corporation, located at Grand Rapids, and engaged in making school-seats. The defendants are partners, under the name of the "Grand Rapids School Furniture Company," making substantially the same seats, and the two are competitors for the same trade throughout the country. Prior to July 9, 1886, defendants bought up an old patent on school seats known as the "Slaymaker Patent," and on that day defendant Perkins, claiming to own the same, filed a bill in the United States circuit court at Grand Rapids against the plaintiff, alleging that the seat made by the Haney Company infringed the Slaymaker patent. Νο injunction was asked or granted, and afterwards, on final hearing on the merits, the bill was dismissed. The declaration by which the present action was commenced contains six counts. The first count charges that the defendants published the matter complained of in the newspapers of Grand Rapids, and caused such papers to be circulated generally among persons likely to purchase plaintiff's goods; and that they also published the same statements, in substance, by letters written by said defendants, and by them sent out by mail broadcast throughout the country, to any and every person whose name they could learn who was negotiating with plaintiff for the purchase of its goods. The second count charges that the defendants made such statements in person and by their agents at their office in Grand Rapids, and by their agents throughout the country, to and in hearing of divers persons intend ing to purchase school seats of the plaintiff, and to the public generally. The third count charges that the defendants caused such statements to be published in the Grand Rapids Telegram-Herald, a newspaper published at Grand Rapids, and circulating throughout the State of Michigan and elsewhere. The fourth count charges that the defendants made such statements in a letter addressed to one Elliott, and sent him at Council Grove, Kansas. The fifth count charges that the defendants made such statements orally to a Mr. DeMoss and a Mr. Conrad, of Clinton county, Michigan. The sixth count charges that the defendants made such statements to the school board of the village of Grand Ledge. At the close of the trial in the circuit court, the court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendants, on the ground that the testimony offered by the plaintiff did not entitle it to recover. It is insisted here by the counsel for the defendants that the testimony offered and that produced on the trial by the plaintiff, if true, would not constitute any ground of recovery; or, in other words, that there was nothing to go to the jury, and that the court was not in error in directing the verdict. Under the third count of the declaration, plaintiff produced a Telegram-Herald newspaper of July 15, 1886, containing an article stating that there was a lively competition between the Grand Rapids School Furniture Company and the Haney Manufacturing Company, and, among other statements, that the former company had secured an injunction against the Haney Manufacturing Company, restraining it from manufacturing seats with patent bracket and fold, etc. This article was offered in evidence by plaintiff, and ruled out by the 4 |