*1 1077 redemption within years t.hélwo 9956k, qrtotéd mentioned in See. supra. reason, For appellants some undisclosed fail to abstract exhibit, city’s purchase/” “certificate of merely státing offtetécTas an it was turned in to the city does collector. The record not sustain their .assertion it was issued on agreed November 3,-1937. state facts states that n ment of respondents “recéived’’ uf certificate purchase 3, on November 1937; appellants.’ petition, *but- said states 1, certificate 1937, was issued November respondents, deed 9957a, Ibid.,.is Sec. prima.facie “. made ... ./.of regularity premises the sale the, deed, of the ,described in et, regularity cetera,''.explicitly pripr-proceedings,” alí recites ‘‘ purchase day November, that the certificate of date the 1st bears 1937.” The not present record does for determination the issue 11: 1 attempted injected-by appellants. to be against
What we have judg- said rules the case' appellants. ment Cooley Westhues,, (7(7., is affirmed. concur.- The foregoingopinion Boi-iltng, C.,
PER adopted CURIAM opinion judges as the the court. All the concur. Murry Sr., Edwards, Nulsen, Albert G. Re Appellant,
N. v.
spondent. No. 37107. Murry Edwards, Sr., al., Plaintiff, Nulsen, N. v. Albert et G. k Defendants, Company, Corporation, Appellant. R. L. Pol & (2d)
No. 37108. 152 S. W. 28. Two, 10, Division June 1941.* Opinion Term, September 1940, April 3, 1941; * NOTE: filed at motion rehearing Banc-filed; May or to transfer* en to Court motion overruled at 1941; Term, 1941, June *2 Douglas Murry H. Jones for N. Edwards.
-(cid:127) Clem, L. Polk & Com- liverell II. Wells for R. F. Siorckman pany.
Í08Ó M. Hill for Albert Nulsen.
Orla G. *4 Hennings, Henry Jackson, Oreen, Evans for P. amicus James curiae. damages filed suit to recover
WESTHUES, Edwards C. Plaintiff a libelous through publication alleged to have been sustained Corporation;. Company, Polk & defendants were: R. article. The Nulsen,(cid:127) Sr. Albert Nulsen, Jr., and G. Nulsen; Norman L. Albert G: case was and the prior the trial Norman L. Nulsen died Defendant as to was sustained the evidence him. demurrer to abated as to in verdict juryA returned a Nulsen, G. Jr. the defendant Albert of one Company, in the sum favor, against L. Polk & plaintiff’s R. damages. From that $25,000 punitive damages, actual dollar as 37108 on is case number Company appealed. Polk That judgment & of the defendant jury a verdict in- favor docket. returned our The plaintiff, judgment in his favor Nulsen, Sr., and from the Albert G. they Murry 37107. While number Edwards, appealed. That case they court, briefed separate appeals, and each case was were -- opinion. disposed of in here will one were consolidated be 37108, in case number where will first consider the issues We complained of was respondent. is the Edwards article page a four prepared Norman L. Nulsen. It form of was and, through R. L. Polk & pamphlet facilities of the defendant lawyers, men' and Company, mailed to a business number of lawyer high McDonald, a corporations. Major business Thomas F. target standing living city Louis, principal of St. actual judgment $9000 He sum of libel. obtained
damages against judgment & affirmed Company. Polk That Co., 346 this court in the v. L. Polk & Mo. case of McDonald R. here, (2d) matter
142 S. W. 635. We will not restate the libelous opinion'in but- refer the McDonald case. article reader to alleged murder, guilty in substance that McDonald had been blackmail, gross hypocrisy, with extortion and colluded plaintiff Murry plot. in an is difficult eon- Edwards extortion - defamatory a more That it was libelous ceive vicious and libel. per se was It was it false in its conceded. also conceded that entirety. demurrer, Appellant’s present-contention offered *5 is that its at the of This evidence, all the have been sustained. close should point against ruled -appellant Appellant was in McDonald case. the earnestly not opinion insists that the in the McDonald case does conform the to established state the facts law. We will therefore publication of detail and will surrounding the the libel rather in The' liability further consideration.- give appellant’s of question the as- about of libel were the the leading publication facts to conceded wife of former Edwards, Murry represented the Plaintiff, follows: alimony of judgment a in a to collect proceeding L. Nulsen Norman at against Nulsen rendered $20,000, had been in the sum of which year 1934: in the from Norman time divorce the the wife obtained corporation, to his stock, he in a pledged had owned Norman brought Edwards alleged an debt. payment to the father secure payment against subject stock to the proceeding the father to Nulsen, Sr., alimony father, had judgment. -the Albert G. emT attorneys litigation, but represent him in this ployed a to number of attorneys interference, owing these to conduct of L. the Norman and his who Finally engaged McDonald, from the father withdrew the case. judgment until a of the remained the case settlement was had through early 1936. part- occurred in Edwards. the This evidently-became highly litigation over and Norman incensed the March, -1936, attempted publish a the pamphlet to similar to here one question. printing company, engaged print circular, the noti thereof, immediately fied McDonald his whereupon McDonald notified efforts, client, Norman,- through father of the refusal and and of the printing company print circular, Norman’s nefarious scheme to plaintiff, defame character of McDonald and the Edwards, successfully at frustrated. Norman made further tempts to have pamphlet published, but a num prepared he printing ber of companies Through to do the work. refused family, efforts principally father, prevented Norman was publishing from libel at evidently that time. Norman then- a bankrupt. advancing per His father was him $200 about month -living expenses. On the advice of McDonald this -allowance was $150, reduced to awith view that Norman would not then have sufficient funds the publication to finance of the libel. All went well until following August. father 'The that time Michigan. State of Norman to him went and asked for and obtained $500, sum'of on the pretext leaving that he per St. Louis manently going and to Washington purpose for the seeking em ployment. evidently Norman immediately returned to St. Louis printed libelous matter a printer identity whose hafi he was keep able to secret. There remained the task of distributing the pamphlet. accomplished This was through the facilities Polk & Company. Polk Company & practically has officesin all of the cities of the United compiled States. has and assembled classi n fied, list of names and persons, addresses business firms cor porations, professional men public officials throughout located the United Through States. its facilities business concerns ad send' vertising matter a particular especially class of citizens interested in the matter to be advertised. Polk & Company has an office force
1083 envelopes, advertising through, prepared place which it is address mailing Owing the and attend to thereof. matter therein to its (cid:127) efficiency compiled, company the information which it has and legitimate a of reasonable rate to busi has been valuable service any advertising. Through Company the facilities of Polk & ness informatipn. particular can be reached and served with class of citizens very effectively. year 1936, prior, thereto, In and Polk &. Com thirty pany possession upwards envelopes, its thousand belonging .envelopes kept by were'- to Norman Nulsen. These company purpose sending through for the the mail furr matters by 1936, August 19, nished Norman. About to de Norman went manager-, Company fendant Polk & and ordered what the of-Polk .& Company names, a “tailor called made” list of law-' included yers, judges, nearly and -The business concerns list officials. totaled Nulsen,. day ten thousand or names. so later Norman furnished containing defendant with ten thousand of the the' libelous circulars matter, immediately company the defendant mailed them to persons corporations contained the “tailor made” list. de-, A copy of the circular given was attached to order to.-the company lady charge..of fendant filed in its records .the -, - .;. office. Appellant position brief its states its as follows: a,-libelous responsible hold publication “To defendant for the composed, by,' merely circular written printed not or but transmitted defendant, such it appear must that what defendant-knew might the contents of the circular was or was aware.that circular , contain : libelous matter.” - That same in the contention was made McDonald case. After reviewing the. question, court, One, in Division McDonald v. R. Co., 615, (2d) 635, 3), (2, L. Polk & 346 Mo. 142 W. l. c. S. said: 640 n clearly ‘‘ In view fact the circular here involved was per se, by defendant, libelous and in view of the service.-rendered flung advertising in connection with extensive and far its considered by- facilities, liability governed, we think that defendant’s should be a applicable newspaper same rules of libel law or broadcast- ing company case, supra. ruled in It is our con- the Sorensen ’' properly clusion the court the demurrer to the evidence. refused 348, reported case referred to in 123 243 N The Sorensen Neb. again considering the-question W. 82 A. L. wo R. 1098. After ruling adhere in the case. case McDonald This furnishes example fine man for the rule. Here was a irre -wisdom of that- sponsible financially, laboring speak, a delusion deter under so to good mined to reputation, assassinate the character two citizens alimony. simply judgment because he pay had been forced to newspaper article, print No would have no broad dared his libelous casting company have considered-it'. It-was so libelous and would
defamatory print it: 'His ''owh printing(cid:127) companies refused'to publishing him from family doing everything''possible'to restrain n company, Yet, through defendant the libel. the facilities' *7 very of the dagger ‘the marrow ail'd'heart pierced libelous the reputation n effectively say, We more of McDonald and Edwards. ¡have broadcasting through newspaper than or' could been done manager evidence; through its sthtidn, appellant because, said in'its indeed, made”- it was the libel went to a ‘‘tailor made’* list. '“Tailor’ men, judges lawyers, the business because list contained the names of daily con and-officials with-whom McDonald and Edwards'-were'in at tact. The was discussed evidenbe' showed-that the article 'libelous' lawyers meetings Association, by from coast two American Bar the: great gulfC Appellant-in to-coast--and brief from-the lakes to the its ' n says' of in -opinion the' the McDonald case: anomaly country foreign among “It is'an the Of this decisions jurisdiction. decision is-our insistence that the ünsoundness of-that recognized,and illogical, unjust should be this harsh and doctrine earliest,' this, be this -at shoidd removed from the decisions of State the ' - '' -- ' :- (cid:127)- opportunity to so.”- do ' situation,-the As-we view in the McDonald case the rhle' announced justice. is a The upon wholesome rule based common sense and n before, opinion-sustain in the case authorities cited the it. As said consequence examples at1'bar and the' McDonald case are -of-the would-naturally by appellant. follow if the for rule were as contended part It would-'have taken-J than time the less two- ininutes of on Company: 'glanced-'at Polk-'& 'the circular and refused its have ' -' distribution.
Appellant $25,000 that-the punitive also insists verdict of damages passion-and prejudice-on part is so exorbitant as to indicate jury court, of the to shock conscience therefore it should be set aside. No fault Wasfound with the form of the instruc ¡issue. tion‘submitting reviewing evidence, In which-we think t fu-lly justified damages, an punitive pass assessmen of we will also admissibility by on questioned appellant. When the evidence the'. defendant’s-office, boy, an circulars-'were- delivered at the errand by employed defendant, curiosity’s read one of-the circulars 'for mere replaced sake- and then it in the box which it had been taken. from permitted him, objection, to'testify The court over defendant’s - boy’s charge he read the-circular. The in of the errand mother was office time, at the read in her presence- and the circular-was but not admissible, aloud. purpose The if for no other than knowledge lady ¡charge. circumstance-to show on in part1 of th'e sufficiently boy.to suspicious circular-looked to the office arouse curiosity. glance suspicion. mere- at the circular would arouse words, -picture:of McDonald,-the On the face'of it under the -‘(cid:127)‘(cid:127)Ex posed Plot,” Also, appeared-in type. Extortion left folder, glance ap view of a picture plain of the aiul first words, , ”, Extortion' . “Bar Violates Federal . peared Head right F. McDonald criminal words, 'faces and .to. .“Thomas . the folder filed in the records the defendant . . .This.was given jury with From that' a could company the order Nulsen. company knowledge infer that the defendant 'that‘the'article libelous, all, But that that Nulsen had is not evidence showed years. Company of Polk & for a number of been customer had in of a company copies its files number of circulars which it had previously scurrilous, 'highly Nulsen. Circulars were mailed a, defamatory ridiculing libelous. Each was headed cartoon besmirching the óf a well and. character known citizen. No citation of authority necessary:to ruling admitting the court in sustain knowledge possession With that circulars evidence.. glance agents, question and its a mere defendant at the circular’in *8 charge knowledge sufficient to the with defendant that the circular was , plaintiff lady charge the employees other libelous. aid of The called They, the with the 'of errand witnesses. 'the exception defendant boy, any they part testified that circulars bit did not read saw.the St, manager office., Mr. Kingdon, thereof. the of Louis testified the part:. : . sent', newspaper I the that it been out “From knew had article and I to mailing mail was anxious know whether we did the or shop some other letter and for that I did so reason asked Miss Oetter ” did, said, she we, ‘Let me see the about-it-and circular.'’ said and.! a Kingdon copy.of also sent that a circular out them testified is be the supposed to attached to work letter sheet. was done That case., Kingdon charge of and had not at several states was the the, office were whpn St...Louis- circulars mailed. But evidence inquiry revealed Oetter that when Miss she knew of the made .of he. thereof, the a circular .and knew that in the files. These copy ¿11 considered, were adverse when is witnesses. But reasonable, ,th¿t only agents to drawn be is, inference therefrom thé m¿iled. knew defendant circular libelous before it The .was , subsequent the defendant, conduct of to the distribution of cir- cular, disregard a a total and disclosed reckless indifference to the after; rights:.of immediately and that plaintiff, Note McDonald-. plaintiff circular distributed and McDonald a demanded retrac- willing The cooperate! tion. father Nulsen was to He. Norman to, any prepare McDonald statement he desired and would it informed be; ¿ .published.. this, McDonald not desire but retraction did .wanted to, parties-, The received'‘the circular. The sent tempted, father at- who but, get success, without to from Norman of the list names when, to Plaintiff, the circular had sent. been learned whom he for., .the defendant the circular,’ had distributed askéd the’list.’ .’ Phn- 1086 list even refused to sell give him but only refused to not fendant manager’s evidence: Note the him.' it to saw Oetter and en- in the Miss came office Edwards “Mr. agreed deavored, to sell out. She that was sent list purchase to sell I said we could not matter to me. referred him and then
it to . . . property. not our it it, as was -it Murry Edwards because list to Mr. sell the refused to “We Mr. up especially for list made a ‘tailor-made’ call what we ’’ Nulsen. poisonous, libelous to drive his made,” enable Nulsen Yes, “tailor only McDonald. Edwards and character of dagger deep into the have been administered alleviating oil could through which avenue it refused to defendant, of the possession the wounds was in $25,000 conduct, and not the verdict of is sell that avenue. verdict, indi- shocking. jury, by its dámages, punitive ¡that an assessment of sum as deserved that the defendant cated upon any explained be other damages. The verdict cannot punitive justified sub- theory. the assessment would have The evidence jury evidently damages. The reasoned actual sum as stantial damages paid plaintiff. to the In view $25,000 would punitive be disregard defendant, its total and the conduct the circumstances McDonald, cannot be rights the verdict said be excessive. may though damages compensa even be allowed Punitive Shain, tory damages are but nominal. State ex rel. v. assessed [See (8-11) 13), (2d) 351, (12, l. 356 and cases 341 108 S. W. Mo. c. being excessive, appellant amount cited As to the there cited.] 93 Co., App. 187, Buick Auto Mo. case of Jones v. West Side *9 1083, l. punitive (2d.) $2,000 W. c. 1089. In that case verdict of .a S. a damages The defendant had sold was sustained. second car, speedometer had set the prior hand and to the sale to show miles, and in fact had 22,400 ear had traveled when in truth it traveled authority ought 48,000 in Further citation of not excess of miles. case demonstrate that the verdict in the before us necessary to be Printing Publishing see v. & Seested Post was not excessive. [But Co., (2d) company's The defendant 559, 326 Mo. 31 S. W. 1045.] been, a of important extended to number cities of business has country. Legitimate amount an enormous of business. does whereby industry. it renders valuable service to business business. advertising Through matter can be its facilities' information disseminated, persons Specially of and firms. millions selected to may served, suiting demands. It is groups be advertisers’ not duty gigantic a a impose upon that the law should such unreasonable against corporation guard of its the use facilities to further to said, What we have when publication of vicious"libels. read in case, opinion disposes in the McDonald of all connection with against It. L. judgment Polk points appellant. briefed be affirmed. Company & number must case judgment in appeal will Edwards’ from the now consider We Nulsen, Nulsen, Sr., father of case of Albert G. Norman favor* number, given .Many pertaining to instructions at points 37107. respondent’s request Respondent were briefed. contends that against him, justify and there insufficient to a verdict was instructions, any, if fore in the were harmless. We have errors the, respondent’s be reached conclusion.that contention must sustained. any respondent prior There is scintilla of evidence that time not at any way encouraged the publication to of the libelous article in aided or appellant his of son Norman in his scheme to defame character directly contrary. Edwards The evidence to the McDonald. Respondent power prevent publicátion. did all in its his to On one city trip occasion made a special from the State of Texas to the he prevent publication. St. to He to Louis reduced the allowance son, his suggestion, so to curtail son’s financial his McDonald’s ability publish the In when August, to libel. it seemed that Norman idea, respondent give had abandoned the This, did him $500. how ever, in belief Washington that Norman going to to seek employment. fact, When publication accomplished was an respondent Michigan came aiding to St. Louis from purpose for the McDonald having a retraction reach those who received the circular. He McDonald, by informed phone Michigan, from to have Norman ar necessary, rested prepare if he, respondent, and to a statement and published have it (would or mailed at his own expense. True, he attempt get unsuccessful a list of to the names. The' evi upon dence which appellant is, respondent gave relies that Norman make a charges $500 to defense of criminal to suits lib.el against money filed defray taking him. The was to the expense of depositions. establishing When if asked it was purpose the truth the charge, respondent enough say frank Norman’s idea but he think did not Norman could do it. n Respondent always maintained there was not a word truth charges August the' made 31, 1936,- days Norman. On three 'after plaintiff’s petition filed, had been respondent signed a letter addressed, Cummings, Attorney-General Homer S. of the United body States." The letter read as follows: has, ‘For several Norman endeavoring.to months L. Nulsen been get hearing Jury charges before the Federal ybu Grand on
n have on-file. *10 “ being ‘We still respectfully request are harassed you that Kindly take prompt let us at may action.' know once we expect what way your . of action from department. ‘Kindly your reply address to Albert G. Nulsen, care of Mrs. ” Baíke, Slildred 40 Street, West 32nd Indianapolis, Indiana.’
ÍÓ88 It was signed by request. at respondent letter was Norman’s
That had Norman' Nulsen, Jr., and Norman.' signed Albert G. also to Attorney which were referred charges to the 'General submitted imaginary an or delu- was'possessed Norman insane the libel. him'un- intermingled hatred which rendered sion with malice and the father justifies The inference that controllable. evidence ruling from the signed obtain this letter so that Norman would Norman’s Attorney General, adverse which course would b'e had respondent idea. There Was no offered to show evidence Attorney any had with thé matters to the General connection submitted time, prior He no referred to the letter. were disagreement McDonald. any had with publication libel, Respondent bore highly pleased He' with rendered. Was the services no will Edwards. evidence showed ill toward publishing respondent power prevent all in Norman from did to make opinion failed libel. We are of the judg- jury. It is ordered that therefore submissible case Bohling, respects Cooley and ment trial be in all affirmed. court GG., concur. by Westhues, C., adopt- foregoing opinion
PER CURIAM: The opinion judges ed All as the the court. concur. Posey Fowler, Appellants. Adrian State v. Odis (2d) S. 34. W. Two,
Division June 1941.