*1 615 against special to be lien said The then declares amount decree The property. of the and the sale directs its foreclosure premises, merely furnished a to recover finding plaintiff was entitled not If entitled against the land. for the lien basis erroneous do not find the decree there be no lien. We to recover could charged. “interest because allows Appellant criticises the decree it also interest.”,. judgment $843.55, asked amount petition The bill, provided law from per of the and for interest at 8 cent as tax amount of interest date of demand. The record shows that Judgment principal for both due was was entered $37.96. the rate aggregate sum of interest at $881.51
interest judgment the amount per paid. until While a is cent becoming merged judg then and after into the interest due appellant charges, is not ment bears interest as the still decree on all specifically liable to criticism as the statute allows interest 1929, Stat., p. money upon any judgment. R. S. Ann. due [Sec. 4628.] conclusions, In view of our of no avail to discuss con- tentions. judgment is affirmed. All concur. F. v. R. L. Polk &
Thomas McDonald Appellant. Company, (2d) S. W. 635. One, August 16,
Division 1940. *2 Gtillen, Williams, English, Nelson >& Storckman <&Coil and Everett H. appellant. Wells for
Moser, Bearing respondent. Marsalek & *4 BRADLEY, libel, C. This is damages an action and was against commenced appellant Nulsen, and Norman Nul- L. Albert G. sen, Sr., and Albert Nulsen, case, plaintiff’s G. Jr. At the close gave court a peremptory jury direction to the for defend- find ant, Albert Nulsen, Jr., G. defendant, as to this took an involuntary leave, nonsuit here, with not, appears but did so far as file motion to set aside the nonsuit. At the close the whole case jury found for- defendant, against Sr., G. Albert *5 R. L. Polk & Company and Nulsen, Norman plain- L. assessed and tiff’s damages actual $9000, damages. at punitive but did R. not find L. Polk & Company and Norman L. separate for Nulsen filed motions new trial. Plaintiff defendant, filed motion for trial to new Albert G. Nulsen, Sr. All these overruled, motions L. Polk were and R. L. Nulsen Norman appealed. Nulsen Norman L. Company & and and, motion of on appeal, to the 22, 1939, subsequent died March 6, 1940. March was abated appeal the Nulsen at evidence to the of a demurrer assigned Error the refusal is on refused, and given instructions, and case, of on the close the whole
on admission of evidence. hereinafter, has ref- defendant, noted, term Unless otherwise here. Company, appellant L. erence R. Polk & to good repute, and of Louis, prominent attorney St. Plaintiff is an State of the 1938; is member years trial, 6, old at time of June a. 1931; was chairman since Examiners and has been Board Law for three Bar Association grievance St. Louis the years committee 1935, May, from 1932; president of the association was was the the association May, 1936, president, he was to and while distinguished service. recipient award for of the St. Louis civic Nulsen, wife, Orr 1934, his Katherine In Norman L. Nulsen and $20,000. alimony judgment divorced, an and she obtained Ware- Louis Terminal the St. practically He owned all the stock of father, Albert G. his Company, pledged this stock to house pledge, this brought suit to set aside Nulsen, Sr. The divorced wife Sr., by Nulsen, employed January 18, 1935, plaintiff was entirely Sr., represent to set aside. him in the suit Norman, who, the services, son, plaintiff’s his satisfied with but no- mind, of the show, became obsessed record tends to was of unsound service, professional in his tion that had been unfaithful out,” speak. had so to “sold Detroit, prac- in Defendant, with branches whose main office “mailing States,
tically large city in has for sale every the United service, if a cus- advertising and, as a lists” mail envelopes stamp tomer desires the defendant will address by customer, put advertising therein the matter furnished mailing. to the and attend August 19, printed
Prior to Norman L. Nulsen had some 10,000 foundation of copies per libelous circular that is the se cause, August 19, 1936, secured from prior this he defendant address, men, lawyers, news- 10,000 names, with of business some officers, papers, banks, manufacturers, judges, etc. Most of these were August 19, 1936, Norman Missouri, many but were elsewhere. On delivered, delivered, printed L. Nulsen or caused to be defendant hire, copies of the libelous circular and for defendant addressed the (furnished by Norman), placed therein, the circular envelopes men, stamped etc., copies to these business mailed phamphlet circular. in form and contained four The circular was pages, pages following: contained the each 8 11 inches. These top at is a page:
First Somewhat towards the the center page large picture plaintiff. picture and across the Over *6 McDonald, former words, F. “Thomas appears the capital letters right -To association, cleanup leader.” bar’s president of bar prosecution McDonald faces criminal picture: “Thomas F. extortion, murder, charges.” The words on extortion and murder large picture caps in and charges large and caps. in Below-the plot,” in below and heavily “Exposed extortion and underscored is following: page is the continuing to bottom of first Bar McDonald, President of Association F. former “Thomas Murray Edwards, exposed in in collusion with extortion'plot St. Louis attorney.
“Wealthy Louisan, man retired manufacturer business St. Attorney General of the demands immediate action United States. charged conspiring colluding with
“Thomas.F. McDonald attorney, Murray Edwards, attempt in an to extort with the stock Co., its the St. Louis Terminal Warehouse from owners. charged justice,
“He obstructing crossing is further with double deliberately misinformation, withholding client, giving important his planned attempt miscarriage in a a justice facts to create and to Nulsen, extort stock from property valuable Albert G. president former Pigments National owner and Chemical Co.” page: top picture
Second Towards and in center is group a plaintiff, Rand, Frank chairman commission, St. Louis civic award Mayor mayor’s picture Dickmann. The was taken in-the office Association, and shows ceiving on behalf of St. Louis Bar re- (cid:127) city’s distinguished civic award service. Over the St; picture is, “Presentation Louis Award.” To the left: “Thomas F. payment lawyer McDonald recommends of blackmail to prevent legal racket.” right: To the “Posed as zealous reformer. prestige Used publicity of office and to cover his crimes.” Below picture and near the type and in is, small McDonald, “Thomas F. chairman of the Grievance Committee of the St. Bar Louis Associa- tion, has been group’s the leader in activity years for two bringing against lawyers disbarment suits found guilty of unethical ’’ practices. page-follows: Remainder of second “Thomas McDonald, widely F. publicized head of Association,- Bar as a raising moral force ethics standards legal profession, investigation faces prose- violating cution for state and federal laws. “McDonald is berated posing as zealot advancing legal ethics and running standards upon while rackets unsuspect- his own ing clients. being paraded “While public before the as receiver of Award for Distinguished Service, McDonald using this prestige to entrap, ’ ’ mislead unsuspecting and swindle clients. picture of and at center is top Towards page: Third is, “Reprinted picture man. younger Over Sr., when publication to a City,’” has reference which Louis, Fourth ‘St. of St. is, “Despoilers To left appears. picture in which right: “Helped To the property.” his steal attempt Louis *7 ’’ is the picture near city. and Under fourth Louis the
make St. and immediately the name Nulsen,” below name, G. and “Albert investigation by is, “Demands large caps in extending page across follows: page The continues as attorney general.” years, for over in St. Louis Nulsen, in business active “Albert G. principal president as and owner. Corporation’ Nulsen ‘The headed Barytes Mines Southeast operated extensive paint business His Georgia. plants companies’ The Cartersville, at Missouri and Virginia. Missouri, Lynchburg, Louis, at located St. the Barium States as known thruout the United “A. G. Nulsen was largest refining operated barium mines King, because he changed corporation’s name He later plants in the States. United Co., holdings Pigments and sold his to & Chemical “The National Lead the National Co.” , is of the St. page printed fourth on a The facsimile contents and, except Company letterhead Terminal Warehouse Louis letter, follows: pertains to the is as what
“August 20, 1936. Cummings, S. “Homer “Attorney States, of the United
General Justice, “Department of
“Washington, D. C. Thomas F. Criminal Prosecution of McDonald on the
“SUBJECT: Charges Principal Blackmail, Extortion and Mur- of der. ‘‘ properly Nulsen, notarized and sworn affidavits of Albert G. Nulsen, Nulsen, Jr., totalling Norman L. Jack C. Nulsen and Albert G. pages, your typewritten been forwarded to offices have at the Justice, Washington, D. C. These Department documents cover of Thomas F. activities McDonald and develop criminal others and criminal the motives acts. approximately 150 witnesses depositions “There are whose confirm,
testimony detail, long have to be taken will list of Thomas F. McDonald and criminal activities the criminal acts of with him. numerous others involved ‘‘ by testimony, supported facts, The evidence and will of course Henry Miller, President of the Terminal show that Railroad Associa- Louis, heavily involved, I tion of St. is am confident testimony of the numerous depositions bring witnesses will an Henry grand Miller from the jury. indictment you suggested find has will this “It been case will call for a years period a of sis and involves special prosecutor since covers high men in crimes of extortion murder. positions very truly, "Tours L. Nulsen "N.
"Norman L. Nulsen.” any trial was no claim one at the there was even There n wrongful concerning suspicio conduct on the litigation apparent It he handled for Sr. that the whole sprang contents circular disordered mind and had no fact foundation whatever. It nothing is conceded that defendant prepara- do with the had .to situation,
tion of the and in such defendant contends that it is not liable, employees unless its addressing, who attended to the - enclosing, stamping mailing of the circular knew the cir- probably cular might libelous, says was or be and defendant there was no substantial evidence that defendant so knew. theOn says hand, plaintiff published admittedly that defendant *8 per se, libelous is, therefore, regardless liable of whether it might knew that the circular or was be libelous.
Defendant,
brief,
in its
says
that no
"act
the
of the
defendant
.
.
.
a publication.
constituted
.
.
.
Publication
lacking .
.
.
merely transmitting
because the defendant was'
something which
apparently
was
an innocent document without knowl
edge that it
Corpus
contained libelous matter.”
Juris
publi
defines
cation, in
defamation,
the law of
as "the communication of defama
tory
person.”
matter to
J., p. 1223,
a third
C.
sec. 133. See
[36
also,
Chicago,
Ry.
Harbison v.
Co.,
R. &
440,
I.
P.
Mo.
327
37 S. W.
(2d) 609, l. c.
is no
There
merit in the contention
defend
616.]
ant did not publish
question
the libel. "The
persons
as to what
are
liable for
closely analogous
defamation is
question
to the
of what
publication
constitutes
may
or who
be
publishers.
considered as
.
general
.-.
As
rule,
a
persons
all
who
participate
cause or
in tiie
publication of libelous or slanderous
responsible
matter are
for such
publication.”
J., p.
C.
12,
"Any false and defama
[37
sec. 298.]
tory publication
privileged gives
which is not
a
rise to
case for
damages sustained from it. This is true of libel.- .
.
. The essen
tial
falsity
facts are
charge,
the
publication
its
and libelous na
ture.”
Evening
v.
[Farley
Co.,
Chronicle Pub.
App. 216,
113 Mo.
227,
c.
l.
libelous at his publishes he publishes a man Mansfield, by ‘'Whatever Lord ’ face. on its harmful A libel is plain. . . reason is . The peril. concerning manifestly hurtful statements publish man sees If a fit for an adver than exists justification other individual, without an make tort principles of will news, usual piece or a tisement him only one of some or are true are false liable, the statements if ?1 ©lS6 82, 82 A. L. R. 348, 243 W.N. al., 123 Neb. v. Wood et Sorensen speaker, Wood, radio against damages for 1098) anwas action candi Company. plaintiff The was a Broadcasting KFAB and the plain Over radio and attorney general in Nebraska. for date speech: his “In read from Wood, among things, other said or tiff, attorney general’s office he (the plaintiff’s) acceptance his justly uphold the law man that would took an oath before he God and naught and his oath to man are for honestly. promises Iiis libertine, nonbeliever, irreligious an sacrilege, for he is a God is. ’’ man fool. mad and a defenses, among broadcasting company pleaded, The speech, knowledge, advance, to the contents of Wood’s no it-had among-.the telling was one instructions for this defendant effect, negligence of def jury, the law and not law underlying liability, broadcasting as to amation was the basis in favor of company. jury returned a verdict against damages, broadcasting for nominal but found Wood judgment company. appealed, Plaintiff was reversed and court) (headnote : cause remanded. The court ruled concerning them one writes words another and reads “When libelous microphone, with the consent of the owner of broad before casting words, the and such owner broadcasts those reader station *9 further, in a publication and owner unite of libel.” And the the 86) : in (243 court said N. W. l. c. “It has often been held news analogous paper closely publication by publication, radio, which is to publisher a due care and honest mistake do not relieve from that liability principles for libel. . . . The fundamental of law the by by newspaper in a a publication involved station seem to radio why legal alike. There is no reason one should be be over favored broadcasting why granted a -station special nor should be another may against publica as one who be a victim of a favors libelous also, Wasmer, Inc., al., Miles v. Louis et tion.” 172 Wash. [See 847; (2d) Coffey Midland-Broadcasting Company, Pac. v. Supp. 8 Fed. 889.] according general conducts, manager to its Defendant in Louis, St. advertising Louis,” in and from a business St. “mail record it appear large, that conducts such business in all it cities of would
,625 that de- record appear Also, would it States. United in, catalogues names and ad- and classified has assembled fendant etc., individuals, firms, of if millions of thousands not dresses desires, stated, the customer as if sale, and, are for name lists these advertising or matter, what- envelopes, enclose defendant will address stamp and mail. mailed, and to ever is be al., Brinkop et Becker v. case of Defendant cites the libel separate In that case demurrers W. 538. App. 871, (2d) Mo. 78 S. appealed. petition The sustained, plaintiff were petition to the for nomination for republican candidate alleged was a that Louis, August primary, ward) St. at the (13th in woman committee Engelmeier also candidates Mrs. were 1932; Mrs. Rothweiler and willfully, primary defendants place; shortly before for this plaintiff. libelous to etc., ward a circular that was distributed circular. the con- copy One petition contained a action in sustain- support court’s tentions made defendants Also, per se. ing circular not libelous the demurrer was that the was alleged. The publication not Court it was contended that was per se; publication libelous Appeals that the circular was held sustaining the de- sufficiently alleged, and reversed was order , opinion, In the course murrer and remanded the cause. Slander, court relying Odgers on Libel & said: publication for the of the libelous “To make defendants liable were that the circular appear must that defendants it aware they it, was, .might libelous; or probably be, or also that delivered person, that the delivered, it third third caused to be some person it, it, or its contents. These ele- read saw understood appear, that, prove must if could ments the reason defendants wholly ignorant they of the contents circular and matter, suppose they had that it contained libelous no reason could they not not held it could then be said that be liable because (italics ours). published had libel” consciously opinion consciously It that the would seem court was that the published applicable case, be in the but rule would Becker says present ease, implied is or what said as to this rule being applicable is obiter. Whatever the -Becker case case not, subject consciously published, pertinent here, rules on the applicable advertising such rule should not be to such an because agency as defendant. In view of the fact that the here in- circular clearly se, per and in view the volved libelous rendered service by defendant, considered in connection its with extensive far flung advertising liability think facilities, we that defendant’s should governed by applicable be same rules of libel law to a newspaper broadcasting company ease, or as ruled in supra. the Sorensen It *10 is our the properly conclusion that court refused the demurrer to the evidence.
626 1, 3, and assigned plaintiff’s on instrnetions and
Error is C, D, E, F. B, offered instructions on the refusal of defendant’s they jury if found No. told the Plaintiff’s instruction it, then to published libelous, was and that defendant the circular sending mail- though they plaintiff, even found “that the find for . of an ing . . was the result of said circulars defendant or to oversight any purpose or . . . intention mistake without injure ruling on the to plaintiff.” the demurrer the evidence Our 1. disposes complaint plaintiff’s on instruction No. damages
Plaintiff’s was on the measure of instruction No. they jury they for plaintiff and told the that if found should award you damages him “as from the actual such sum believe and find fair to him compensation evidence will constitute a reasonable damages you for as he such and loss find from the evidence has proximate as sustained and will sustain result of direct ’’ publication ... circulars. then went on The instruction jury assessing damages might to tell actual they consider: “(1) circulars, The number of said of the aforesaid nature therein, individuals, corporations statements contained and the (2) officials to sent; damage, any, whom said circulars if plaintiff’s good reputation directly resulting name from the publication statements; damage, any, of said (3) plaintiff’s if practice lawyer' directly as resulting statements; from said (4) whatever, any, anguish pain, if mental plain- and humiliation the tiff has suffered and will suffer publication direct result of the of said statements.” says plaintiff’s “erroneously
Defendant
No. 3
instruction
com
ments on
and singles
emphasizes
the evidence
out and
certain evi
dence
requiring
jury
without
to take into
all
consideration
in the
supporting
evidence
case.”
assignment,
As
this
de
City
fendant cites Rice v. Jefferson
Bridge & Transit
(Mo.),
Co.
746; Keppler
S. W.
v.
(Mo.),
Wells
238 S.
425;W.
Burton v.
al.,
Holman et
Instruction C in (D) D E were'to effect there struction B. Instructions any knowledge tending had was no evidence to show that defendant was no evidence (E) the contents of the and. there any tending knowledge of facts or cir- that defendant had show likely belief “that said circular was cumstances which would cause ruling also contain libelous matter.” Our on demurrer dis- poses assignment D,C, of the on refusal of instructions E. assignment
Defendant’s on the refusal its instruc offered F, tion they and on admission of evidence so related that are may together. high boy, be Stroup, considered Frederick school employed by boy, actually as errand defendant trucked circulars postoffiee. objection exception, Frederick, to the Over as a wit ness that while about testified defendant’s officehe “saw girls addressing envelopes,” putting and later the “circulars envelopes,” he “all page” read of the first circular. Defendant agent contends Frederick was not such employee or as to question knowledge bind defendant on the contents, and instruction F knowledge was to the effect that on the part of Frederick as to the contents of the circular not would be binding on defendant. ruling on the disposes demurrer also assignments the refusal of instruction F and on the admission of evidence. The judgment should be Hyde affirmed and it is so ordered. Dalton, GG., concur.
PER CURIAM: The foregoing opinion by Bradley, C., is adopted opinion court. All judges concur.