Case Name: George Jackson versus Abijah Adams and Another
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1813-03
Citations: 8 Tyng 484
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Jackson versus Abijah Adams and Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 424–427

Head Matter:
George Jackson versus Abijah Adams and Another.
A printer of a newspaper is generally answerable for carelessly printing an adver tisement; but not for incidental and remote consequences involving considerable loss and damages to his employer, the printer not having been particularly warned of the necessity of correctness in the individual instance.
Action on the case against the defendants, as printers of a public newspaper in Boston, to recover damages for the incorrect printing of an advertisement, relative to the sale of an equity of redemption, upon which the plaintiff, as a deputy sheriff, had levied an execution in favor of one Coolidge; by reason of which the levy failed, and' the plaintiff had been compelled, by a suit at law, to pay a part of the amount of the execution to the creditor.
At the trial, which was had upon the plea of not guilty, before Parker, J., November term, 1811, the plaintiff proved all the facts alleged in his declaration, viz., that the execution of Coolidge vs. Boulter was delivered to him to serve, the same having issued on the 10th day of May, 1809; that on Saturday, the 21st day of May, he caused an advertisement to be written by one Brewer, who had been accustomed to write for deputy sheriffs, in which the sale of the estate in question was appointed to be on Monday, the 20th day of June then next; which advertisement Brewer carried, on the same day, to the office of the defendants, and delivered it to one of them, requesting him to insert it in their paper, which was to be published on the next Thursday. Adams, to whom it was delivered, * opened the advertisement, and looked at it, but did not read it, and said it should be printed. The advertisement was delivered to a compositor, who had been long in the office, in that employment. On Monday, the 30th of May, the advertisement appeared in the defendants’ paper ; but it was printed incorrectly, the sale, according to the printed advertisement, being to take place on Monday, the 28th, instead of the 20th ; and the ,28th of June being in fact Tuesday. The advertisement, in this incorrect form, was printed three weeks successively, as the law requires; and it did not appear that the mistake was discovered until the true day appointed for the sale ; on which day, an advertisement appeared in the paper, notifying the sale to be on Monday, the 27th of June. On Monday, the 20th, the plaintiff went to the premises advertised to be sold, and caused them to be bid off; but the purchaser, being made acquainted with the defect in publishing the intended sale, refused to accept a deed. At this time, the thirty days after entering up the judgment of Coolidge vs. Boulter had expired ; and the premises were now taken by another officer on another execution, there having been an attachment thereof on Coolidge’s suit, and a subsequent attachment on the suit, in which the last-mentioned execution issued. The premises were sold on the second execution, and the proceeds paid over to the creditor. Coolidge afterwards brought an action against the sheriff for the default of Jackson in not satisfying his execution, and judgment being rendered in his favor, execution issued for the sum of 1049 dollars 29 cents, which execution was paid and satisfied by Jackson, the present plaintiff.
It was in evidence that the plaintiff was about his usual business in Boston during the week in which the advertisement first appeared, and afterwards, while the same continued to be published. Mr. Bell, another deputy sheriff, testified that until the commencement of this suit, since which time the printers had become more careful, he had usually examined the advertisements he had caused to be inserted in the papers, in order that mistakes, if any * should appear, might be seasonably corrected. It was admitted that the defendants were to receive the usual compensation for printing the advertisement.
Upon these facts, the judge directed the jury that the plaintiff ought either to have given a caution to the printers, of the necessity of printing the advertisement correctly, or to have examined the paper, and compared it with his original, or in some other way have ascertained whether it was printed right or wrong, in season to have corrected it before it was too late; that the suffering the several publications to pass without examination, until it was too late to correct them, or to seize the premises anew before the thirty days had expired, was such negligence on his part as deprived him of the right of resorting to the printers for his damages. The verdict, under this direction, was returned for the defendants, and a new trial was moved for by the plaintiff, on account of a supposed misdirection of the judge in point of law.
The motion was argued at the last March term in this county, by Sullivan for the plaintiff, and Blake for the defendants.
Sullivan
argued that there was an implied promise on the part of the defendants, that they would do accurately what they had undertaken to do for a reward engaged to them; and that for performing the undertaking negligently, they were answerable to the plaintiff for all damages arising to him therefrom. This is the general law of the land, and there exists no reason why printers should have an exemption beyond any other class of tradesmen. By the delaying to publish the advertisement in this case until the 30th of May, instead of the 26th, as directed, the plaintiff lost an opportunity of reseizing the estate, when the error was discovered, and again advertising it for sale at another day.
Blake
contended that the defendants could be answerable only for the amount which they charged for their service, not for these consequential damages. The price paid them was a remuneration for their labor only, but was * wholly inadequate to charge them with this extravagant responsibility. It was the plaintiff’s duty to see his advertisement correctly printed, and when he discovered a mistake, he should, have informed the printers in season for its correction.
2 L. Raym 909, Coggs vs. Bernard. — 5 D. & E. 143, Elsee vs. Gatward. — 4 Johns. Rep. 84, Thorne vs. Deas.

Opinion:
At this term, the opinion of the Court was pronounced by
Sewall, J.
The undertaking of the defendants, in this case, being for hire, and in the exercise of their ordinary occupation, — that of printing, — they must be answerable for any neglect or mismanagement in the performance of their trust, and for any loss or damage which might have been avoided by that degree of care and diligence which their employer had a right to expect and rely upon. If, therefore, the printers were not misled by the writing of the advertisement delivered them, — as, for instance, supposing it now examinable, if tiventieth, was not so written as to be mistaken for tiventy-eighth, supposing a suitable degree of attention on the part of the compositor, — I think the defendants are liable in this action. For I can have no doubt that the master printers are liable for the default of their compositor or servant; and in this particular, the direction at the trial appears to me to have been incorrect; because the plaintiff may be entitled to a verdict for him; although a principal question will still remain to be decided, as to the amount of damages recoverable against the printers under all the circum stances of this case. And as applied to this, which is the most important question in the cause, I am inclined to think the direction at the trial was substantially correct.
The nature of the printer's undertaking is such as that a minute and perfect transcript of an advertisement delivered to him in writing, or an exact correctness in .the first impression, beyond what may be expected from a general care and superintendence of his newspaper, is not to be understood in any contract for printing, where no special caution has been given by his employer, and no special undertaking has been expressed on the part of the printer. * When any particular care and attentian are requisite, it is the duty of the employer to suggest it, and to guard himself, in this respect, by cautioning the printer, or requiring a special guaranty of exact or material correctness in the first impression of a particular advertisement.
In ordinary cases, the printer publishes, relying upon some continued care on the part of his employer, that he will examine and verify the impression, and for that purpose will give notice of, and will be attentive to have seasonably corrected, any errors of impor tance, to some of which the business of composing and printing, even with ordinary care and diligence, is notoriously subject, without requiring an allowance for the hurry usual, perhaps, in printing newspapers, applicable to this particular case. The loss of the erroneous impression the printer incurs, and any extraordinary expense to procure another, which he may be exposed to ; for so far the employer is protected, even without his corresponding attention, upon which the printer may be supposed to rely.
But for incidental and remote consequences, which may prove to be, as in this case, losses and damages of a very considerable amount, the risk respecting them not having been notified or stated to him, and of which he has no warning, — for these, I think, he is not liable upon what may be considered within the ordinary undertaking implied from his occupation. It is not to be supposed that he undertakes, for the pay of an advertisement comparatively inconsiderable, to have an exact correctness, independently of the attention of his employer, and without any special caution or notice, at a risk so very extensive in the amount. And even upon the supposition adopted in the argument, that by the delay in publishing the advertisement, the opportunity of correcting or renewing it was lost, and all the consequences were inevitaole, which, in this case, have been incurred at the expense of the plaintiff, I cannot consider the printers answerable for these damages.
The Court concur in granting a new trial