The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-03-19
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW.
Further Discussion of the Liability of
Com narcial Agencies. &

Further Discussion Of the Liability of
Com mercial Agencies. ~
In a former article l pointed out the law
in Now York. and that which is generally
followed, to be that the reports Of meroan-
tile agencies are privileged communica-
tions, exemptinR them from liability for
statements otherwise libelous when, and
only whom, such reports are made to sub
will recognize in tho information given;
and this interest must be more specific than
that which gubacril ers have i'll all persons
reported, and must be an interest in the
particular concern or business concerning
which the report is made.
The rule is th0 same whore the reports
ara made in cipher. :
The mere statement in q printed report
that persona. Interested in Il certain person
named are invited to call at the office of
the agency for i~nformation and nothing
more. 10 not libelous.
A New York case in 1888 decides that 4
false agency report, to the effect that a
Judgment has been rendered against a pc
son, naming him, is not libelous per Sc. and
that. without proof of special damage aris-
ing therefron, the agency is entitled to q
verdict. the argument Of tho judges being
that this Of itself is not sufficient from
which to infer unBoundness Of financial
condition.
On ths same theory q Maryland case
holds that to publish falsely Of Il man that
he has given q chattel mortgage is not
libsloua per Sc, without proof Of special
damage.
A United States court case arose in 1867,
where the question at issne was whether
the defendant, Tnppan. could employ in
his of1ics some twenty clerks who had ac-
cess to records in which were written items
affecting the credit of merchants, tho bus
mess of thone clerks being to copy these
rscords md communicate their contents to
customers in answer to inquiries, and still
enjoy immunity from liability on the
ground of privileged communications.
Judge Nelson, delivering tho opinion, OBJ
served that if tho defendant himself had
communicated the report in good faith and
to a proper person, it might have been
privileged, but the publicity given the re-
port in this defendants office by recording
it in a book to which others, though clerks.
had access. deprived it of its privileged
character. Courts generally have refused
to accept this doctrine, and it may be con-
sidered as settled that tho agency may use
any number Of clerks necessary to tho
transaction of its business and the record
ing Of information in books to which such
persons have access, does not deprive the
Communication of it's privileged character.
For cases upon this subject we refer to
Beardsley V. Tsppan, 5 Blatchf. ~. S.,
497; King v. Patterson, 40 N. j. H., AT;
Erbsr v. Dun, 4 McCrary Gu. 81, 100. II
would seem that in Canada tho law AS to
the liability of mercantile agencies is the
reverse of that i'll this country.
1t seems to be held that no report by an
agency is a privileged communication,
whether made to an Interested subscriber
or not.
Viewed in the light Of the general trend
of decisions made in our courts, il would
seem that Judge Cooley, in his work on
Torts, has stated the law incorrectly in
saying that 'if ono makes it his business to
furnish to others information concerning
this character, habits. standing and reapon-
sibility Of t%rAdesmen, his business 10 not
privileged. and he must justify his reports
by the truth"
DIR. Francis Wharton has perhaps erred
in the other direction when he states that
communications when madc TO Subscribers,
are privileged, regardless of whether they
ars interested in tho communication or
not. The subject will DO pursued further
in oar next article.