Friedenberg v. Times Pub. Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Friedenberg v. Times Pub. Co.

127 So. 343, 127 So. 345, 170 La. 3, 1930 La. LEXIS 1658

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 5, 1930

DocketNo. 30020.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 127 So. 343 (Friedenberg v. Times Pub. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Friedenberg v. Times Pub. Co., 127 So. 343, 127 So. 345, 170 La. 3, 1930 La. LEXIS 1658 (La. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

ST. PAUL, J.

Defendant is the publisher of a newspaper. Plaintiffs are merchants who purchased at sheriff’s sale the entire stock and fixtures of “Zodiag’s, Incorporated.” The latter had not paid its advertising bills due defendant. When, therefore, these plaintiffs sought to advertise such stock of goods in defendant’s pages, the latter refused to accept the advertisement; and thereupon plaintiffs sue defendant for $10,000 actual damages, $1,000 for humiliation and worry, and $1,000 exemplary damages.

The defendant excepted that plaintiffs’ petition disclosed no cause of action. And the trial judge maintained the exception and dismissed the suit.

The weight of authority is that the publishing of a newspaper is a strictly private enterprise, and the publishers thereof are free to contract and deal or refuse to contract and deal with whom tliey please. Mack v. Costello, 32 S. D. 511, 143 N. W. 950, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 384 ; Commonwealth v. Boston Transcript Co., 249 Mass. 477, 144 N. E. 400, 35 A. L. R. 1 ; Journal of Com. Pub. Co. v. Tribune Co. (C. C. A.) 286 F. 111. And at any rate, it is for the Legislature, and not for the courts, to declare that a business has become impressed with a public use. 6 R. C. L. 227, § 219.

There is, however, one case holding the contrary doctrine, to wit, Uhlman v. Sherman, 22 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 225. But we prefer to follow the weight of authority.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ST. PAUL, J.

Defendant is the publisher of a newspaper. Plaintiffs are merchants who purchased at sheriff’s sale the entire stock and fixtures of “Zodiag’s, Incorporated.” The latter had not paid its advertising bills due defendant. When, therefore, these plaintiffs sought to advertise such stock of goods in defendant’s pages, the latter refused to accept the advertisement; and thereupon plaintiffs sue defendant for $10,000 actual damages, $1,000 for humiliation and worry, and $1,000 exemplary damages.

The defendant excepted that plaintiffs’ petition disclosed no cause of action. And the trial judge maintained the exception and dismissed the suit.

The weight of authority is that the publishing of a newspaper is a strictly private enterprise, and the publishers thereof are free to contract and deal or refuse to contract and deal with whom tliey please. Mack v. Costello, 32 S. D. 511, 143 N. W. 950, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 384 ; Commonwealth v. Boston Transcript Co., 249 Mass. 477, 144 N. E. 400, 35 A. L. R. 1 ; Journal of Com. Pub. Co. v. Tribune Co. (C. C. A.) 286 F. 111. And at any rate, it is for the Legislature, and not for the courts, to declare that a business has become impressed with a public use. 6 R. C. L. 227, § 219.

There is, however, one case holding the contrary doctrine, to wit, Uhlman v. Sherman, 22 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 225. But we prefer to follow the weight of authority.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 So. 343, 127 So. 345, 170 La. 3, 1930 La. LEXIS 1658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedenberg-v-times-pub-co-la-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack