Wright v. Afro-American Co.

Digges, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The question that we are asked to determine in this case is the correctness of the lower court’s ruling in sustaining a demurrer to the appellant’s amended declaration. The declaration was filed by Richard R. Wright, Sr., Richard R. Wright, Jr., and Lillian M. Wright, individually and as co-partners, trading as the Citizens and Southern Banking Company, against The Afro-American Company, a body corporate. It alleges that the defendant owns and publishes a weekly newspaper in Baltimore City which circulates throughout the State of Maryland and other nearby states; that the plaintiffs, individually and as a co-partnership, are now and have been for some time past conducting a banking establishment in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, well known as the Citizens, and Southern Banking Company, under a private banker’s license, and enjoying the good will and patronage of a large and growing clientele in the City of Philadelphia and elsewhere throughout the country, where its depositors., creditors, and business correspondents reside or conduct their business., with all of whom the plaintiffs, as individuals and as a co-partnership, trading asi the Citizens and Southern Banking Company, bore a reputation for safe conservative management, having grown and developed their and its present high standard after careful, honest, and well-directed effort, they and it having in every detail complied with the law.

That the defendant corporation, well knowing the premises but contriving wickedly and maliciously, and intending to injure the'plaintiffs, individually and as a co- ⁵⁸⁹ partnership., trading as the Citizens and Southern Banking Company, in their and its good name, fame, credit, and reputation as a hanking institution and to bring them and it into disfavor with their and its clients, patrons, and the public generally, in their and its efforts, activities, and purposes, as a business and financial institution, and to oppress, injure, and ruin the plaintiffs, individually and as a co-partnership, did, on the 13th day of June, 1924, in a certain weekly newspaper called “The Afro-American,” owned, printed, published, and circulated by the defendant, falsely, wickedly, and maliciously compose, print, and publish, and cause and procure to he widely published and circulated throughout the cities of Baltimore, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Hew York, Atlantic City, and throughout the states in which these cities are located, and in other cities and states of the United States and beyond its borders, where the said Afro-American newspaper is widely circulated, of and concerning the plaintiffs, individually and as a co-partnership, trading as the Citizens and Southern Banking Company, a certain false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel, containing among other matters and things the false, scandalous, malicious, and libelous matters following, of and concerning the plaintiffs, individually and as a co-partnership, trading as the Citizens and Southern Banking Company. Then follows the alleged libelous article published by the defendant. It is unnecessary for the decision of the question upon which the appeal depends to set forth the article, the publication of which is alleged to constitute a libel, or to. refer to it further than to. say that under the headlines: “Receiver for Philly Bank; Ask Receiver for Citizens Bank in Phila.,” the statement is made that the judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia granted a rule on the Citizens Southern Banking and Trust Company to show why receivers should not be appointed to take over the assets of the said trust company for the benefit of the stockholders. The declaration further alleges that the institution referred to; in the headlines, and in the explanatory article falling under it, was and is intended to mean the banking institution run by the plaintiffs, individ ⁵⁹⁰ ually and as a co-partnership, trading as the Citizens and ' Southern Banking Company; that the headlines are not a true or fair statement of the contents of the petition filed in the Philadelphia court, that they are untrue and deceptive and made to- deceive the public, and thereby injure the plaintiffs.

That by said publication the defendant meant that the plaintiffs individually and as a co-partnership, trading as the Citizens and Southern Banking Company, that they or it had engaged in practices unworthy of a financial institution; that its funds had been recklessly, if not criminally, handled, and their and its affairs were in bad shape; that their and its depositors and creditors were in danger of loss on account of mismanagement of the affairs of the said plaintiffs, individually and as a co-partnership. That the publication was intended to convey and did convey the impression to the public, its depositors, creditors, and correspondents, that the plaintiffs, individually and as a co-partnership, were in financial distress, and that they and it had engaged in practices unworthy of a financial institution; that the funds in their hands, individually and as a co-partnership; had been recklessly, if not criminally, handled, and their and its affairs generally are in bad shape; that their and its depositors and other creditors are in danger of loss on account of such mismanagement, unless the court intervenes, by the appointment of receivers. That the plaintiffs, as individuals and as a co-partnership, have been, are now, and will continue to be greatly injured, in their individual capacity and as a co-partnership, trading as the Citizens and Southern Banking Company, in their and its good name, fame, and credit which they and it have heretofore enjoyed; and that it has caused many of their and its depositors to withdraw their accounts, others to become restless and withhold further deposits, and inspired numerous inquiries from creditors and depositors throughout the country demanding full knowledge of the bank’s situation, so that the plaintiffs, as individuals and as a co-partnership, on account of the publication of said libel, are serio-usly injured in their and its business, and have suffered and will suffer a heavy loss in the prosecution thereof. ⁵⁹¹ Wherefore the plaintiffs, individually and as a co-partnership, trading as the