Case ID: nc_147/html/0263-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Clakk, O. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HENRY T. KING v. RALEIGH AND PAMLICO SOUND RAILROAD COMPANY.
    (Filed 1 April, 1908).
    1. Contracts — Bought Editorials — Immoral Consideration — Public Policy.
    A contract with the editor of a newspaper that he was to be paid by defendant railroad company for his editorials is based on an immoral consideration and not enforeible.
    2. Same — Carrying Municipal Bond Issue.
    Compensation cannot be recovered upon a contract to aid in carrying an election for a bond issue. Such contract is against - phblic policy and void.
    
      3. Same — Pleadings—Demurrer—Good and Unlawful Considerations
    A demurrer to a complaint in a suit brought for tbe recovery of the value of services rendered should be sustained when the alleged considerations are immoral and against public policy or so mixed up with them as to poison the whole.
    ActioN tried before Lyon,'J., and a jury, at October Term, 1907, of Pitt.
    Defendant appealed. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.
    
      J. L. Fleming for plaintiff.
    
      Moore & Long for defendant.
   Clakk, O. J.

Tbe complaint alleges tbat tbe plaintiff was editor of a newspaper, and “(2) tbat during February, 1902, tbe defendant company, then trying to secure aid in building a line of railroad from Ealeigb to some-point on Pamlico Sound, applied to tbe plaintiff to secure the columns of his paper and bis personal service in trying to carry elections along tbe route of tbe proposed road by wbicb bonds were to be issued for tbe use and benefit of said road, and to gain for said rpad tbe good will of tbe citizens along said road and in other ways assist tbe managers and directors of said road in-tbeir undertaking; and under tbe promise from tbe manager and one of tbe directors of said defendant company tbat be should be Taken care of/ well paid for bis services, be agreed to serve tbe defendant as best be could in tbe manner suggested, and did serve it in tbe ways indicated by defendant through tbe columns of bis paper, by advertisements and by personal services at elections and in other ways well known to defendant. Eor such services tbe defendant agreed and promised to pay, but when demand was made tbe defendant admitted bis right to compensation, but only offered him $300 in second mortgage bonds of its railroad company for bis services; (3) tbat tbe services rendered tbe defendant by tbe plaintiff were reasonably worth tbe sum of $1,500; (4) tbat payment has been demanded and refused.”

The plaintiff makes clear Ms meaning by bis evidence, in which he said: “I was to do everything I could, through my paper and by personal service, in the interest of the railroad. * * * I published editorials, etc., in the paper for two' years. * * * I don’t know that I published articles favoring the railroad in every issue. They were to pay me for editorialsHe further testified that he'had a great many conversations with the president and. general manager of the defendant railroad company, “in all of which he agreed to pay for my services. I ran a paper — that was my regular work. * * * Another service I rendered was in arranging for and helping to carry the elections for issuing bonds for the railroad in 1903. Contract was, £if it won, would issue $15,000 bonds and take second mortgage,’ etc. I was largely instrumental in getting citizens interested and in calling elections and in getting people to register and vote and in carrying the elections. Don’t know that others got anything for services. * * * Munford (an advertiser) has paid me as much as $400. I gave him more space than I did the railroad, but if I had advocated his business like I did for the railroad it would have been worth several thousand to his business. I never published notices for railroad. County and town paid me for election notices. I wrote the editorials published in my paper myself and would copy extracts from other papers.” On redirect examination he admitted that “There is a difference in advertising a thing and advocating a measure.” The Court concurs in this last proposition.

When an advertisement is inserted the public knows that it is paid for, that it speaks for the advertiser and that the representations are made by him and not by the editor. Rut an editorial is understood to express the true and unbought views of the editor. It is because of that fact that they carry any weight with the public. It was precisely because of such weight that the defendant thought it worth money to buy the use of plaintiff’s editorial columns. Had the plaintiff informed tbe public that be bad sold bis editorial columns to tbe railroad company bis editorials would bave bad no weight whatever in inducing tbe citizens to Ante a bond issue on themselves in favor of tbe railroad. Both parties knew this. Both are at fault. Public policy will not permit the courts to enforce a contract based upon an immoral consideration, but will leave tbe parties to their own devices. Basket v. Moss, 115 N. C., 448; 44 Am. St., 463; 48 L. R. A., 842; Burbage v. Windly, 108 N. C., 357; 12 L. R. A., 409, and many other cases cited, 135 N. C., at pp. 733, 734. Neither tbe sale of editorial columns nor services for carrying an election are recognizable in a court of justice as ground of action for a recovery of compensation.

Contracts, for money or personal profit, to use efforts and influence to “carry an election,” especially an election of this character, are contra bonos mores. 9 Cyc., 500; Wilson v. Puryear, 12 Ky., 556; 15 A. & E., 984; Dean v. Clark, 80 Hun., 80.

In Trist v. Child, 88 U. S., 449, there is citation of numerous authorities AAdrich have refused to uphold contracts alleged in the complaint because they are held to be against the policy of the larv and the theory upon AAdrich the government of this republic is founded.

The plaintiff in this case was the editor of a paper and is seeking to recover for sale of his editorial influence and for other alleged services in carrying an election to issue bonds. Certainly this Avas as much against public policy as an agreement for a consideration not to> bid on articles to be sold by the government, or an agreement to pay for a contract to carry the mail, or an agreement to pay for procuring signatures to a pardon to be presented to the Governor, or an agreement not to bid at a sale made under the judicial order, or an agreement to pay for promoting a marriage; because in each of the several instances mentioned, which have all been held to be invalid by reason of public policy, the interests affected are private and largely bear upon individuals rather than upon a community, while in this case the interests affected are public and bear, if the burden should be placed, upon the whole community.

There are other services mentioned in the complaint, but they are all stated in the same cause of action and so mixed up with it as to poison the whole. Trist v. Child, 88 U. S., 441. It is probable that the whole employment was based upon the influence of the newspaper and its editorials. Certainly the defendant’s demurrer ore tenus to the action should have been sustained below, and it must be sustained here.

Action Dismissed.