, 1870-12-20
UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT.
1hc RiKh Of So-Callcd Comme,,
cin1 Agencies.

| No: 34-Lewis Tnppan ps. iohn ana Hntsca
naar5aloyEtso- 10 tho Gitruit Gon1t f,p =,
Southern District Of New York. tbs defAnd'
| snts n error constituted the firm OF II. Bcards.
tey Mysu g Go;, merchants at Norwalk. Huron
en- IN New York tho businass Of q merr.ntiia
| egency' and, IN the courae Of his bp:iuess.
pub!i;h he'd concerning the firm that their store
| weald probably 20 soon closed. aa the wife Of
/ one one 81 g. The brothers had spilled for diyorce
bic pEopetty out Of his hands. It wa sIan &
said that the firm hid boen aued. gnhss1
qnentiy, the report WEB confirmed and Il
vas added that the1a Was no doubt nf tha
nsm beng able to do \ Prosperous basi.
nsSIt Mnni, ~ ~ t.os ~ they we're honest, which
Ihe aln sued to reeoverdanagee Tor thslibel,
AcQ Iha defendant pleaded thst tbe st..a-
| ments published we're confidential commnnics-
| t'oils made IN good faith In the course Of buat
n gsI; 10 o1 psoper OCCASIONS. and without malice
iered by Tappau 70 ahow the usefuIasas O.,
mescan1l6 sgencies in the conduct Of internal
sfade and commerce. On the ground that M
ev1denee Ind been giveu on fho pap OF tie
* a.d.lszs tending e fnnpesch or to bring in-
the ibuhinese. The Court chsseed the iu9r
that the agency conducted BY Tappan VA.
N lts general p1lposes and festtraa hoth
lawful aEd useful, and that information how
@ ese5 41e;is,nAsosy; 1e;., communicated tr him in
n1e1se5...ns Supplying to him for mi snio1. ~
matlcn to guide ,ns..,, in their buzine.a, Wis in
law Privileged communication, for which no
ac'lon could he maintained by the party de-
11naed ~ it. except On proof Of express
~ nance. II Wa, however, further chsreAi
nss I4PFAns mode Of deing business de-
r p',ea = na1 nun el my immunity under the rules
q o. AH eo1ceru1ng privileged co cozmuaicatio3s.
Inc employment by him Of q clerk or a1ent
% haia The communication, aud tho am sinr-
meEt OF clerk or agent By lis merchant rnf-
sstieeE 70 ootain or receive 1t. were each alita
ersaSsu ~ n 70 ee Incompatible With the secrecy
son other than the uerchant himself .stfntv
1oE ntotmAtion had In law the rirht "a raHf
q near It, and to him they could Be- Iswfniir
communicated onls by the defendant himaelf|
aApptns counsel requested the Court to H.
s1net the Jury that the privilege applies to
eonmonica'ions made IN this c1ae- notTi.k-
staIulns taat khe words ia question ware rexa |
?E IN me hoating Of. the clerks employed t
" nm, provided thst the Jury shall besaatis-
neu .tu@ me evidence that su.h clerks wera
notlnesa of the agent, aud wese cnuadeutisIlT
enfleEed for .ALd IN the transaction of thc
oaAness further. that the privilege app1ie..
Lo;#'thstandi1g that the words Eero rad to
os u the hearing Of the cla1ks Of the msr-
eh.Et tnbscEibe1s, provided such clerks were
neeessaF to the transaction Of tho business Of
psoy ed therein. '1a
But tbs court below refused 10 ch,rca or ;,.
~ st1uct me 1u1y In this manner, ana tie yeF-
Hsa commenced In 184s, and tr1ed In the Mso
~; .n Court II 1851: In 1864 motion for = new
if1ai NAa made before Judge Eelson (tte CIR.
cutt Court having ovenuled exceptions taksu
IN the District couIt), which w1s danied. Tbs
case then came here. WHARF II wss
ArGnrd.
co1nsI 3os the plaiutin in er7or. after a.a}-
1n6 tne conceded 1ulo Of Law Il to privileged
ununaeationa, maintained that tho terrn
ani!; u need therefn, ~ 10: confined to dusies
1nSn r. tS}inaing Il l.x md therefore
toeiA : dutiea Of imperfect obiixaiou.@ #
laitly Haz7znted By any Teasanable occa,ion
ot eugeoey, and honestly rpado, c,arnrnun;-
ra'1ons A1e protected foz the co,uuanu r>nn.
tsntenee ard Eelfsre OF society, zod the law
;. aieh!n ~ Any nAtzo~ limits. Tho presenco Of =
lcnu Hleep not interested In Or counactod {
nun sne subtect-mlsteE has not beau dnem.
Eo oulee4ofaale Ehao it wAs NOT sought a.
IFsn 11esa Eaosonly. but from necessatJ or
.tpedieney. Ehe1e the nature OF Ia e.ss
,as required i and important interests Houid {
e promoted thereby i very considerable d. !
Tee Of publicity has bsen allowed in nr;ri.
sged fommunicastous. The procuring md ! !
1880 AA4<A@&IS kuEH Information I :,
~ ~ y gnest1o9 his been approved a. :
9Th lawful and 1setul bv ' sTery tr,hns !
~ be1ors which i! has been af1aicned +
ne common sentiment OF the nerc.ns5ia :;
l1ts haa sustained the business. aud. in ean- 3
ea4ecce, 1t hsa gIoEn mp With the cornrnarr1 Il
LEO country. The practical etdcsoy of fhe n
1ecaunons employed Is rindica.ed b. liza in. -
leqnsncr OF complaints or IaFanits. Il :
lost fourteen suits for defamation hsra -
ot1ed IN 50 Widespread bu.iresa tsurinr tha ;,
.n1y 5ear! Ct its existence, only this one Il
Asane attuntd to any SUCCESS. ali the Jndgea =,
oa lhsate Persons who thns testify 10 Ia ],
atna Ind utility Of this busineaa tn.r th,t :.
No possibility couh it b conducted withont :,
70 atd q agents or employees, md tha Jn5ea n
n9 g tf7ed this e1oae waa the frat to discoyer n
that tndjsPens able ingredient 1he mp1ns NJ r.
inevitable destruction. Il
lhs council for the defendants IN error fn- n
~ tnA1 tee Communication Of tho staten eut M
tiis cAses from clerks to clerks, via not 4 T
fltlegtd Communication. It IL subnaitted tu
'a: tbe esldcEca viii ahox that thera we're no Al
len tumors current ID thesa published by cf
appAn; and it Ia asserted that any 1ufun11 <I
aich Eere sdo&t weze -put In circulation by n
Q publication Of the libel IN Naw York. I In
lelf acd honsst inquiry by TAppau, it is Ut
ID, At the home and place Of bu.t- es
70 OF the Beardl1eys would barn shown Of
9 1Anty and EtpuEd1esAness of tho reports. ~
ID that the Bearde1sya ware men OF 1ut
% character xud merchants Of uut0pe.ched xh'
etit- 1hs evldenoe m tho divorce cass shoWa un
u The application by tho xIfe of ons Of thau III
= without cauxe, md resu1tsd from tie un- NC