*1 actually The sentence this. understand failed appellant was years. to 10 imposed jeopardy. placed double
Affirmed. in the result. J.,
SPAETH,
concurs
Decided Petition Feb. 1977. Granted *2 Philadelphia, appellant. Henry Sommer, for J. Philadelphia, Marcus, appellees. B. Harold JACOBS, WATKINS, Judge, and Before President PRICE, HOFFMAN, CERCÓNE, VAN der VOORT SPAETH, JJ.
CERCONE, Judge: following
This final decree appeal is an from sitting equity: the court in below day November, wit, “AND NOW, to this 10th following hearing merits, it is a and final full here- hereby Defendant and Decreed that the Ordered enjoined permanently in, Willing, R. Helen be and demonstrating against picketing from further and/or Attorneys-at-Law, from ut- Quinn, Mazzocone tering publishing libelous defamatory, slanderous or attorneys.” respect matter with to said As modified decree affirmed. equita- plaintiff’s request
The record that for reveals undisputed following precipitated ble relief was September facts: For several hours on Monday, in Wednesday, defendant demonstrated October front to Two Penn Center Plaza entrance Number Philadelphia building City, —an office located Centre plaintiffs De- offices. which maintained their law shop- pushing fendant’s of her a demonstration consisted ping blowing on a ringing cart while cow-bell and engaged sign so whistle.1 While defendant wore a form of a sandwich board which read:
LAW-FIRM OF QUINN-MAZZOCONE ME STOLE-MONEY FROM ME AND SOLD OUT TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY plaintiffs’ attempts amicably de- When terminate failed, they fendant’s demonstrations instituted this ac- tion in defendant’s conduct. among established,
The evidence before the Chancellor firm, things, plaintiffs, other two-member law prosecute her were retained defendant in 1968 to Although compensation claim for workmen’s benefits. plaintiffs defendant, secured a favorable decision spawned animosity ironically was this event which developed Specifically, towards them.2 defendant be- plaintiffs wrongfully lief that diverted to themselves ap- proceeds. This conviction $25.00 settlement parently regarding pay- arose out of some confusion according ment which, plaintiff’s distribu- $150.00 schedule, treating tion to the made defendant’s psychiatrist, Dr. DeSilverio. Defendant maintains plaintiffs only paid Dr. DeSilverio the sum of contention, reply plaintiffs In to this intro- $125.00.3 relating duced into evidence their records to Dr. De- *4 connection, 1. occupant In this Three an it is to be noted that by Penn Center ant defend- Plaza testified the noise that created thirty distracting employees was so not that he and his could work, and that he had to close the office. disability benefits. permanent/partial 2. Defendant was awarded any interesting registered 3. It to note that never defendant “Mnplaint Sig- about the her activities. distribution until instant nificantly, shortly these Court occurred after the Commonwealth benefits, disability dismissed her claim which for total a claim plaintiffs prosecute opinion refused to of their that same because was unwarranted. 102 including Furthermore,
Silverio, cancelled checks. possible falsity to the truth or of defendant’s al- doubt as legations himself, dispelled by who DeSilverio Dr. plaintiffs paid had him testified that indeed $150.00 attempt his no services. Defendant made contradict simply evidence, repeated or refute but her this belief plaintiffs no $25.00, her out of that had defrauded proof contrary to the erase this conviction. would
As the lower court well stated: clearly that “Thus, evidence adduced establishes firmly defendant is a woman thrall belief plaintiffs her, which, fixe, defrauded idee ei- eccentricity ther even more serious reason or an instability, dislodged by mental refuses to the most be convincing proof contrary. equally to the It is clear stayed Court, that unless this defendant will resume building, parade plaintiffs’ her before office bizarre displaying defamatory accusation which will not plaintiffs offer continuous embarrassment injury professional humiliation but do serious to their reputation as well.” injunction is challenge court’s to the lower
Defendant’s
predicated
does
on the traditional view
publication of
power to
1967);
(4th
Cruise,
v.
First
will
only property rights
opposed
personal rights has
as
to
expressly repudiated by
been
Supreme
our
See
Court.
Harrow,
(1955).
Everett v.
380 Pa.
nied jury pass falsity upon to have a the truth or publication. argument persuasion, This loses all however, in plaintiff those situations where clear has ly judicial established before a tribunal that the matter sought enjoined to be In both false. the words Pound, jury of Dean in such a is a trial case “mere form” and “is no more in the case an obstacle than jurisdiction enjoin trespass, disturbance Equitable Pound, 4. Injuries against Relief Defamation Personality, Sedler, Injunctive (1916); 29 Harv.L.Rev. 640 Relief Note, Integrity, and Personal Devel- (1964); 9 St. Louis U.L.J. opments Injunctions, in the Law: 1011-12 78 Harv.L.Rev. Writing: (1965); Bertelsman, Injunctions Speech Against A Re-Evaluation, 59 Kent L.J. 319 supra, Pound, easements at 657. nuisance.” Note short, objection In jury trial there are vanishes where *6 j ury. no In the fact to to the controverted issues of submit case at bar, the evidence established that the defendant’s sign accusing plaintiffs stealing money from her and of selling company her the both false out to insurance attempted Indeed, dis- never to malicious. defendant pute plaintiffs’ evidence, or but rather continu- contradict ously upon the not relied that will “defense” injunctive relief the circum- defamation. To refuse under grounds stances of that this case the defendant would jury be denied a trial is to elevate form over substance. denying argument The for third often invoked injunctive plaintiff in is the relief defamation cases that premised adequate remedy has is an at law. This reason sufficiently theory damages on the that an of will award recompense plaintiff any for harm occasioned Injunctions, publication. defamatory Am.Jur.2d, We, difficulty accepting idea however, 186. § payment money that of of either an ade a sum is in quate proper remedy the first in case. In this per good stance, professional it is a obvious that and/or possession. reputation unique precious is a sonal Damage possession however, diffi is, to this inestimable prove accurately; fact, most cult in in and measure damages, measuring property cases, more difficult than Ha/rron, supra. importantly, we cannot Everett v. More present action disregard in the the fact that case pointless gesture damages the defendant a since would be indigent. Canal v. The Union In case of Heilman Company, (1860), an action 37 Pa. which was using diverting the wa company from canal restrain a insolvency creek, ter “the of held that Court ground defendants, equitable interfer of itself However, ac instant [Emphasis in the ence.” added.] but, insolvency tion not the defendant’s do we have pointed above, inher- the difficulties as out we also have ent attempting damage to measure in dollars the caused defendant. An additional consideration mili- tating in equitable jurisdiction favor of is the avoidance multiplicity of a In suits. view of the un- defendant’s shakeable plaintiffs conviction her, have defrauded it is not unreasonable to assume that unless restrained persist she conducting will demonstra- tions knowledge secure in monetary judg- ment would permit be unenforceable. To this would place plaintiffs oppressive position resorting ineffective actions at law whenever the defendant is in- denigrate clined to Clearly them. this cannot be an “ad- equate remedy at law.” Everett supra. v. Harron, frequently equity’s final reason re- advanced for *7 injunction luctance to defamation is that an against the would be unconstitutional as a prior expression. restraint on free This the most is far cogent support of all the reasons in offered of the tradi- However, tional view. as ob- Mr. Justice Frankfurter served : phase ‘prior
“The self-wielding restraint’ is not a sword. Nor can it serve as a test. The talismanic duty analysis of judgment closer apply- and critical in ing thought phrase behind the has thus au- been thoritatively put by brings weighty learning one who support to his constitutionally protected liberties: needed,’ ‘What is writes Freund, Professor ‘is Paul A. pragmatic operation particu- assessment of its generalization lar prior circumstances. The that re- particularly straint obnoxious in civil liberties cases yield particularistic analysis.’ must to more The Su- preme Liberties, Court and Civil Vand.L.Rev. Kingsley Books, Brown, 539.” Inc. v. 354 U.S. 441-442, 1325, 1328, 1 77 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1469 gives strong Justice viability Frankfurter the minori- to ty view, pragmatic if such is the modern case, that a rather approach than a should theoretical and historical
be justiciability made in deciding of an against defamatory publications. course, Supreme
Of
never declared
Court has
injunctions
speech
pass
that all
constitutional
do not
circumspection necessarily
from
muster. This
derives
a-particular
peculiar
realization
case
that the
facts of
may
injunction.
We
admit
no other alternative but
submit
a situa
that
this is
Here
such
case.
we
defaming the
indigent person persists
tion where an
plaintiffs despite
allegations have been
that her
fact
irrefutably
Indeed, the evi
to
demonstrated
be untrue.
one
overwhelming
dence of their
can
untruth is so
purely
infer that the
malicious.
intent is
defendant’s
Furthermore,
proceed
indigence
with
her
allows her
having
defamations;
there is
pay
out fear of
for her
self-censorship.
no economic
Similar
incentive here
upon
ly,
indigence
any
deprives
plaintiffs
fund
they
measure,
might
which
draw to
some
repair,
damage
reputations.
already
their
done to
business and
suggestion
requires
Hence, the
the constitution
plaintiffs
utterly
continuing
false at
endure a
upon
affording any
reputations
relief
tack
their
without
agree
whatsoever, monetarily
cannot
or otherwise. We
permits
condemna
that the constitution
such inverse
rights.
personal
tion of these valuable
degraded
public
speech is
“The
interest
in freedom of
*8
caused
it
used
harms
when
as a shield
tortious
wholly
significance.” Re-
private
statements of a
statement,
942,
(1939).
Torts
d
comment
§
major-
Furthermore,
inconsistency
there is an
with
injunctions
ity
it
libel
approves
view in that
in trade
cas-
injunctions against defamatory publi-
es and frowns
concerning
reputation of
individual. Pur-
cations
enjoined
adorning
from
their cars
chasers have been
drawings of
with
lemons and similar decorations or
against advertising the
vendor. Car-
identification of a
Knapp
Co.,
600,
ter v.
Motor
243 Ala.
107
(1943);
Houle,
546, 11
Menard v.
Mass.
N.E.2d 436
298
(1937);
Torino,
Motor
Misc.
Sales,
Saxon
Inc.
166
v.
863,
(1938).
N.Y.S.2d 885
Demonstrative tenants
picketing
Spring-
been restrained from
their landlord.
Bayside Corporation
882,
Hochman, 44
v.
Misc.2d
field
(1964).
hospital
255 N.Y.S.2d
The owner of
has
a
protected against
disparagement
facility.
been
of that
Gold,
v.
(1959).
A.D.2d
There logic a curious inversion of in the gives rights view that property primacy personal over rights involving reputation. equal There is an involve- ment of speech expression freedom catego- in both ries cases; yet, equity give will relief in one it grounds withhold equitable the other on relief personal derogate right defamation cases would speech. freedom of incongruity That there is an in this reasoning disposition argu- kind of lengthy needs no or ment. There is potential as much threat destruc- person’s good tion of through name malicious false- hoods as there is threatening in coercive and measures against taken property rights. one’s fully We are every aware that cannot ut- terance or publication, whether it be in a trade libel defamation case. Each case must stand on its own facts. An will public not issue when is not in the pivotal interest question do so. The and its solution de- pend presence on the overriding public or absence of an interest publication. in the utterance or In Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. (1971) 2d 296 the court stated:
“It is clear emerged that there has from our cases de cided since New York Times York Times U. [New S., 403 U.S. S.Ct. 29 L.Ed.2d 822]
concept that the First impact upon Amendment’s state libel laws derives not plain- so much from whether the tiff ‘public is official,’ ‘public a figure,’ ‘private or in- dividual,’ as it question derives from the whether allegedly defamatory publication concerns a matter interest,” public general or public
Where the then interest is minimal or non-existent publication, unprivileged a which is also enjoined. should be bar, perceive public
In the case at we interest so no significant permit substantial or con- as to defendant’s tinuing plaintiff’s profes- concerning false accusations plain- injury sional conduct. On the other hand, reputation irreparable tiff’s if the can be extensive permitted defendant is to continue activities. Under circumstances, granted properly these the court below injunction. was
While we have concluded that properly agree issued, we must with defendant’s constitutionally contention offensive decree is insofar it expression. as curtails It well form of established that: entry injunction is, respects,
“The
of an
in some
analo-
gous
penal
to the
It is
no-
statute.
a
things
tice
done,
that certain
must be done or not
un-
* * *
penalty
der a
to be fixed
the court.
Such
definite, clear,
precise
decree should
its
be as
possible,
terms
may
as
so
or
there
be no reason
and,
misunderstanding
disobeying it;
excuse for
practicable,
plainly
when
to the de-
should
indicate
fendant
all
the acts which he
restrained from
doing,
calling upon
without
him for inferences or con-
persons
clusions
may
about which
will differ.”
5.
decree
Given the
that we
the chancellor’s
fact
have modified
undisputed,
and that
defendant’s final
material
facts are
lacking
im-
contention —that
partiality
below
in fairness and
the court
no merit.
—has
*10
Wayne
Works,
24,
Collins v.
Iron
Pa.
76 A.
(1910);
Apple Storage
accord.
Edu-
v. Consumers
Co.
Ass’n.,
(1971).
cation
Pro.&
441 Pa.
“Helen R. be and is demonstrating against picketing from further and/or uttering Quinn, Attorneys-at-Law, Mazzocone and publishing Mazzocone statements to the effect that money Quinn, Attorneys-at-Law from her stole company.” and sold her out to the insurance as Accordingly, by the below the decree entered court hereby modified is affirmed.
JACOBS, J., dissenting opinion in which files a SPAETH, JJ., join. HOFFMAN and JACOBS, dissenting: Judge, respectfully
I must dissent. appeal the Court This is from final decree of County enjoining Philadelphia defend- Common Pleas of uttering ant-appellant Willing from Helen picketing their law appellees statements from about in- appellees entitled offices. I are do believe that junctive relief and I therefore vacate the decree would entered below.
Appellees
firm
offices lo-
are a two-member law
with
Plaza,
cated at Room
Number
Penn
Two
Center
Philadelphia.
represented by ap-
appellant
In
pellees
compensation
benefits.
a claim for workman’s
proceedings relating
ultimately
in a
thereto
resulted
appellant. Appellees’
decision
distribution
favorable to
D’Amico,
Liberty Corporation
6. See
Pa.
ground controversy. for the instant appellees wrongfully
Based on her di- belief that had appellant, verted proceeds, settlement $25.00 September 1, 1975, 29 and demon- October commenced strating Appel- appellees’ building.1 in front of office each of hours on for several lant’s activities lasted shopping days pushing a and consisted two involved ring- fro, flag American cart adorned with the so did ing blowing whistle. She and of bell, a cow having sign accusing appellees of stolen wearing a while insurance money having her out to an from her and sold accomplished without company. were These activities *11 no demands appellant made obstruction or violence and appellees Her demonstration upon in thereto. relation fights dis- peace or precipitated nor neither of breaches peace. of turbances in breach complaint in appellees September filed On any her or of seeking to “the defendant equity per- hearing agents preliminarily on matter until picketing, demon- . . . petually thereafter from: defamatory uttering carrying placards, state- strating, engaging any ments or other conduct interferes which any way plaintiffs ; with the activities of . . . or reputation plaintiffs defames the of . .” . . Hear- ings held, were thereafter on October October on November and a decree final was entered permanently enjoining appellant November démonstrating against picketing appel- from and/or uttering publishing lees and defamatory, from or slander- respect ous libelous matter with to them.2 plaza Appellant pedestrian between 1. located demonstrated in the Plaza, by 15th buildings bounded Two and Three Penn Center Boulevard, Streets, Kennedy and 16th John F. Market Street and Philadelphia. adjacent City the Phila- Hall and The location is Appellees delphia 2. Brief for at courtrooms. hearings At dispute 2. was established that over $25.00 appellee’s centered payment, with around an accordance court, The lower opinion, appel- in its determined that lant’s accusations were unfounded and inaccurate and held that “. stayed . . unless Court, this defend- ant will parade resume her plaintiffs’ bizarre before of- building, fice displaying defamatory accusation which will not plaintiffs offer continuous embar- rassment and injury humiliation but do serious to their professional reputation as well.” The court went below on to state that view, our this behavior well “[i]n falls equity’s within powers interdiction”, traditional of con- “ cluding ertainly, plaintiffs here [c] are threatened injury with that will be substantial and irreversible” and “impoverishment defendant’s re- makes ” empty remedy. course to law an . . . The action clearly Injunc- taken below was erroneous. tive simply relief for “equity’s defamation is within powers traditional general interdiction”. It is the Pennsylvania rule in overwhelming majority and in an jurisdictions that, other independent grounds absent equitable jurisdiction, power lacks the to issue restraining long-standing matter. This may rule be summarized following reference to the law, statement of which particularly appropriate “Equity to the instant case: jurisdiction does not purpose to act for the sole *12 restraining publication or utterance of a libel or slan- regardless der, personal of whether the defamation property right. relates to a Nor will a be en- joined merely false, misleading, because it is or amounts nothing expression opinion. ju- more than an of The necessarily limited, risdiction of somewhat schedule, DeSilverio, distribution appel- $150.00 to Doctor treating psychiatrist. lant’s Appellant’s claim was that Doctor actually paid DeSilverio Appellees $125.00. introduced original evidence, their including records into cancelled checks evidencing payment addition, to Doctor DeSilverio. In Doctor witness, DeSilverio testifying was called as paid a that he was in appellee’s accordance with Appellant records. no evi- offered evidence, dence appellees’ to contradict but took the stand to re- appellees iterate her belief $25.00. had cheated her out of 112 through
any attempted censorship by the writ the court injunction objectionable exercise than is the is no less govern- by departments of that function other by prohibited constitu- ; censorship ment such is in effect press, speech guaranties and of tional of freedom of jury. in- by The right of trial the constitutional regarded wrongdoer solvency in such cases is not such interference. as sufficient of itself to authorize exceptions prohibiting an to the rule There are a few example, in- injunction against libel or slander. For junction may are granted where the false statements be part conspiracy injure, there is intimi- or where of a plaintiff has, After a dation or “. . . coercion. pub- judgment law, the fact that certain established at show- may, proper libelous, he on a lished statements are publica- further ing, to restrain have an . .”42 . tion of the same or similar statements. omitted). (footnotes (1969) Injunctions 135 Am.Jur.2d § In- (1945); Injunctions 134 18 P.L.E. See 43 C.J.S. § junction (1959). 26§ specifically fol- general preceding rule has been Com- Pennsylvania, Insurance
lowed in
Baltimore Life
my
pany
(1902), and
Gleisner,
The
reasons
the
rule that def-
behind
First,
has
enjoined
amation will not
be
are threefold.3
a
in such
issue
injunction should not
been said that an
remedy
is available.
adequate
at law
situation because an
Hor-
supra; Kidd v.
Gleisner,
Baltimore
Ins.
v.Co.
Life
Second,
in-
ry,
Greenberg
supra.
an
supra;
DeSalvo,
v.
inappropriate
junction
universally held to be an
has been
right
to
remedy for
because the defendant’s
defamation
the
of
nature
jury
trial
of the
on the issue
precluded thereby.
Ins. Co.
is
Baltimore Life
Finally,
in-
supra.
Gleisner, supra;
Horry,
v.
Kidd v.
junctive
be-
denied
relief
slander has been
for libel and
injunctive
the constitutional
cause the
relief
inhibits
imposing
un-
guarantee
speech, thereby
of freedom of
Organiza-
right.
prior
on
constitutional
restraint
that
Stansbury
Keefe,
v.
supra;
tion For A Better
v.
Austin
Minnesota,
U.S.
supra.
Beckstrom,
also Near v.
patently
It is
51 S.Ct.
I am treatment troubled question remedy this adequate of an at law damages particu- majority case. The first notes that are larly major- prove difficult in defamation case. ity opinion indi- then the defendant was observes that gent and these factors concludes that the combination of agree remedy inadequate. makes at law I can While proof damages difficult in a defamation case proof unprepared task I of dam- am to state that because *15 ages is is inade- difficult an action for defamation at law quate. logical proposition If this followed to its were conclusion, initially qualify for all defamation cases could equitable law, This not as is not- however, relief. is the supra. Moreover, appellees attempt ed no to estab- made damages hearings lish their did actual at the below and they compensated adequately show that could not be by damages at law. There is no of record to es- evidence damages substantial, irreparable, tablish that ac- were continuing. present tual or is All that is on the record appellant’s the lower court’s conclusion that activities give agree damages. could rise the While I with accu- racy of this observation I that the am unable to conclude possibility damages may proof for serve to substitute (1956). thereof. See Annot. 47 A.L.R.2d 725-26 majority disregard the also states that “we cannot present damages fact that case for would an action gesture indigent.” pointless I be a since the defendant is simply proposition presence accept cannot that the impecunious renders an other- defendant case adequate remedy hold inadequate. wise at To so law ground equity jurisdiction would be to for based create a on the defendant’s or lack of it. I do not believe wealth nor that this distinction our is law of Commonwealth Theatres, only ble privilege.” for abuse of the William Goldman Dana, 83, 88, denied, Inc. v. 405 Pa. 173 A.2d cert. 368 U. S. (1961). 82 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 93 7 Ido think it should To the contrary, be. law well- appellant-defendant settled fact that the is insol- vent, that, judgment might therefore, be un- at law collectible, is not basis the interdiction of a sufficient equity. Co., See Heilman v. 37 Pa. Union Canal Injunction (1959); (1860); L.I. 356 P.L.E. § Injunctions have noted Am.Jur.2d As I § finding above, the that no basis here relied on for a adequate remedy the defend- at was available was law indigency. damages ant’s difficult The fact are prove proper is not a basis for that conclusion. additional Moreover, indigency if for a even alone were a basis dis- agree. tinction, I evidence would still not There is scant appellant indigent other than of record that was in fact represented legal she coun- fact that services sel. is not
The rule that
will not
defamation
Equitable jurisdiction
exception.
to in
without
limited
under some
terdict
libelous
has been assumed
circumstances,
or slander
ac
such as where
libel
violence,
companied
coercion,
see
breach
trust or
conspiracy
Gariepy
Springer, supra,
where there is a
maliciously
property,
injure
plaintiff’s
business
*16
Corp. Hilliard,
see M. W. Bar
v.
& C.2d 435
E.
20 Pa.D.
Weatherproofing,
(C.P.Phila.1959); Downey
United
v.
Inc.,
Mo.
where a labor
(1953),
363
117 appellant’s were activities convinced Nor am I publication was accom enjoined because properly Initially, it must picketing. plished conjunction with in effect purpose predominant noted that be to halt unlaw enjoin defamation, not decree was stant may re picketing be picketing. While unlawful ful 271 Wilson, 94, 166 A.2d 402 strained, 1621, Inc. v. Pa. Union Mills, Textile Inc. v. Workers (1960); Wortex picketing, unac America, C.I.O., supra, perfectly lawful clearly law defined companied by violence or violation constitutionally protected is a public policy of state justify the court’s decree. activity lower could not which Keefe, supra; Organization For Better Austin v. A Building v. & Construction Altemose Construction Co. Philadelphia 449 Vicinity, Pa. Trades Council of denied, A.2d cert. U.S. S.Ct. Neighborhood Organiza (1972); Hibbs L.Ed.2d 392 v. Maple Corp. Housing, supra. Rejuvenate tion to See also (C.P.Phila.1971) Briggman, Pa.D. C.2d & present (Spaeth, case J.). There is no evidence in by violence, appellant’s accompanied were activities may Moreover, coercion or other unlawful behavior. clearly not be her demonstration de said that violated policy. enjoining public fined law or decree below appellant defaming appellees may, therefore, from not be upheld theory picketing accompanying that the enjoinable.
I would vacate decree of court below. join JJ., dissenting SPAETH,
HOFFMAN and in this opinion.