Court Opinion

ID: 9562679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:32:38.857059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:28.984408
License: Public Domain

GiveN, President,
dissenting:
Being of the view that the Court has fallen into grievous error in treating this case of first impression in this State as involving nothing more than libel or slander, I believe it necessary, in order to fully understand the- questions involved, to point out definitely some of the pertinent allegations of the amended and supplemental bill of complaint.
After certain formal allegations, plaintiff charges that defendant and his daughter, “without any justification or excuse whatever, became angry, infuriated and enraged at plaintiff and thereupon conceived and formulated a scheme and plan to circulate as widely as possible among plaintiff’s clients, friends, associates and the public generally throughout Mercer County, West Virginia,, false reports, both verbal and written, to the effect that plaintiff as a practicing attorney was dishonest, unscrupulous, unethical, a ‘shyster’, a deceiver and betrayer of clients * * * with the * * * object and purpose of intimidating and coercing plaintiff to such an extent that he, plaintiff, would not appear as a witness” in a certain chancery cause in which the defendant and his daughter were interested; that in January or February, 1952, in Mercer *517County, defendant and his daughter “* * * entered into an unlawful combination, plan and conspiracy, with the understanding and agreement that they would combine together and through their concerted efforts and with a common purpose and design that they would circulate said false reports concerning plaintiff as a practicing attorney for the object and purpose and with the intention of destroying the plaintiff’s reputation as a lawyer and destroying plaintiff’s law practice, of coercing and intimidating the plaintiff as aforesaid * * and that the defendant and his daughter “have threatened to continue to circulate said reports indefinitely, and that they will do so unless enjoined * * that pursuant to the unlawful conspiracy, defendant and his daughter “began circulating as widely as possible throughout Mercer County, West Virginia, false reports to the effect that plaintiff was ignorant, dishonest, unscrupulous, unethical, ‘shyster’, a robber, a deceiver and betrayer of clients and * * * have continued to circulate said false report and have threatened, and expect, to continue to circulate said false reports so long as they are permitted to do so; that said false reports have spread widely and with great rapidity * * * causing plaintiff incalcuable and irreparable damage * * and that defendant and his daughter “have threatened and intend to continue said defamation with the malicious purpose of destroying * * * the plaintiff’s law practice * * Plaintiff further charges, on information and belief, “that defendant’s financial resources are very limited”, and that plaintiff has suffered “great and irreparable damage and injury” and will continue to suffer damages unless defendant is enjoined from further circulating such false reports.
A letter filed with and made part of the amended and supplemental bill, written to plaintiff by defendant, copies of which are alleged to have been circulated widely in Mercer County, charges plaintiff with having fraudulently induced defendant’s daughter to execute certain documents; with “Double-Cross”; that plaintiff “conceived with fraudulent intent, to deceive Josephine Campbell, the purpose of which was to break up her home, de*518prive her of her children, deprive her of her home, and to lastly drive her away from her family and friends”; and that “The next activity on your part, you had cunningly conceiled the deadly claws of your legally trained mind like a beast of prey, and had lured her to Florida seeking relief from the horrible crime you had done her”. Numerous other scurrilous statements are contained in the letter, but enough has been pointed out, we believe, to indicate the general nature of the accusations. The prayer is for injunctive relief and for damages.
Defendant demurred to and answered the amended and supplemental bill. The answer denied any malice, the formation of any conspiracy, and any threat to do bodily injury to plaintiff. As to the greater number of material allegations, defendant simply alleges that he has no information, or is not advised, as to the truth thereof. Some of the material allegations of the bill are admitted to be true. The writing and publication are not denied. Defendant also alleges in his answer that his daughter employed plaintiff to represent her in her domestic difficulties and that plaintiff accepted such employment, notwithstanding he was then acting as attorney for the husband of the daughter in the same domestic difficulties. It was during the time of the alleged attorney-client relationship, and growing out of it, that the improper acts on the part of plaintiff are alleged by defendant to have occurred. Plaintiff contends that the trust relationship- of attorney and client never existed; that he, in fact, represented only the husband of the daughter of defendant; and that that fact was at all times known to the daughter.
The decree complained of was an interlocutory decree, entered upon the hearing of defendant’s demurrer to the amended and supplemental bill, and on motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, the decree being appeal-able to this Court only by virtue of a special statute, Code, 58-5-1. Plaintiff has had no opportunity to produce proof upon the merits of the cause. Upon the demurrer, as pointed out in the opinion of the trial court, made part of the record, the allegations of the bill “must be treated as *519true on this demurrer”. The trial court also pointed out in that opinion that “The defendant cannot be prejudiced by the continuance of the temporary injunction until final hearing. However, the plaintiff may suffer irreparable injury by the dissolution of the injunction.” Of course, if there is no equity in the bill, or equity has no jurisdiction, the dissolution of the temporary injunction should have been decreed. Coupled with the hearing on the demurrer was a hearing on the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction. As stated in the opinion of the trial court, however, “In the instant case the answer does not deny all of the material allegations of the bill. In fact, the answer admits the writing and the publication of the alleged defamatory letters, but in effect confesses and avoids, and says that the facts stated in the letters are true on information and belief”. In this situation, if equity had jurisdiction of the suit, the matter of dissolving the temporary injunction would be within the discretion of the trial court. In Kessel v. Cohen, 104 W. Va. 296, 140 S. E. 15, this Court held: “2. The dissolution of an injunction is a matter of sound judicial discretion, and the appellate court will not disturb the decree of the lower court dissolving or refusing to dissolve, where'it appears that the discretion has been soundly exercised, or where the contrary does not appear in the record.” See Huffman v. Chedester, 126 W. Va. 73, 27 S. E. 2d 272; City of Huntington v. Greene Line Terminal Company, 126 W. Va. 463, 28 S. E. 2d 905; State v. Navy, 123 W. Va. 722, 17 S. E. 2d 626; Grobe v. Roup, 46 W. Va. 488, 33 S. E. 261.
Though I am of the opinion that equity should, in some circumstances at least, take jurisdiction for the purpose of restraining “publication of defamatory statements relating to personality and professional conduct”, I do not propose to attempt to discuss that question here, for the simple reason that, in my view, the facts of this case make it something more than defamation of personality and professional conduct. Some of the reasons for my belief will appear later in this dissent, in the discussion of questions relating to whether plaintiff has an adequate remedy *520at law. The question, however, is of great interest and of great importance, and has been fully considered in an article by Dean Roscoe Pound, titled Equitable Relief Against Defamation and Injuries to Personality, 29 Harvard Law Review 640, mentioned in the majority opinion.
Considering the allegations of the amended and supplemental bill of complaint as true, as indeed we must on demurrer, it seems clear that, in addition to alleging defamation of personality and professional conduct, the bill alleges a conspiracy to destroy plaintiff’s law business; an effort on the part of defendant to intimidate plaintiff as a witness in a court proceeding in which defendant is interested; an attempt by defendant to coerce plaintiff not to testify in such proceeding; that defendant has published false and malicious reports against plaintiff over a considerable period of time; that defendant has threatened to continue indefinitely the publication of such false and malicious reports; and that defendant has made threats to do plaintiff bodily harm. The majority opinion admits that “conspiracy, intimidation and coercion are alleged”. Also, considering the letters made part of the bill, it is clear that defendant has charged plaintiff with having in numerous ways violated a trust created by the relationship of attorney and client, which defendant contends existed between plaintiff and defendant’s daughter. A false charge that it did exist, coupled with a false charge of the breach thereof, would be as objectionable, if not more so, as a mere breach of that trust relationship. It must be kept in mind that the amended and supplemental bill was duly verified.
In the early development of the law of defamation, it would seem that courts of equity usually denied preventive relief, even where property rights were involved, on the theory that the person injured had an adequate remedy at law. Some courts still adhere to that theory. The English Courts have long since abandoned the ancient doctrine. Undoubtedly, the modern trend of courts in this country is to grant preventive relief in such cases, especially if in addition to mere charges of slander or *521libel there are involved charges of conspiracy, malice, coercion, intimidation, threats of continued publication of false statements, breach of trust, breach of contract or threats to do bodily harm. The rule is stated in 43 C. J. S., Injunctions, Section 135: “Subject to some exceptions, the rule according to most authorities is that equity will not exercise its jurisdiction for injunctive relief against a slander or libel where business or property rights are affected thereby, in the absence of acts of conspiracy, intimidation, or coercion, or where no breach of trust or of contract appears.” Notice the exceptions of conspiracy, intimidation, coercion, breach of trust, and breach of contract. In 28 Am. Jur., Injunctions, Section 116, after considering the general rule, this statement is made: “* * * But equity will interfere by injunction in every other case where it is necessary to prevent wrongful acts resulting in loss of health, loss of trade, destruction of the means of subsistence, or permanent ruin to property * * * with business, trade, or occupation, or with other property rights * * In 28 Am. Jur., Injunctions, Section 118, this statement is found: “* * * Thus, if the libelous publication is to be repeated and continued indefinitely, equity may act on the ground of the inadequacy of a legal remedy to prevent a multiplicity of suits.”
In Menard v. Houle, 298 Mass. 546, 11 N. E. 2d 436, the Court held: “2. Where there is a continuing cause of unjustified and wrongful attack on a business man motivated by actual malice and causing damage to property rights as distinguished from injury to the personality affecting feelings, sensibility, and honor, equity will take jurisdiction, even though false statements and announcements are the means employed, and conspiracy or unfair competition does not appear, since there is no adequate remedy at law.” In Carter v. Knapp Motor Co., Inc., 243 Ala. 600, 11 So. 2d 383, 144 A. L. R. 1177, the Court held: “1. The right to conduct one’s business without wrongful interference and to enjoy good name and good will of business are valuable ‘property rights’ and will be protected by injunctive process if necessary.” “2. One’s employment, *522trade or calling is a ‘property right’, the wrongful interference with which is an actionable wrong.”
In McMorries v. Hudson Sales Corp. (Tex. Civ. App.), 233 S. W. 2d 938, the Court held: “1. Equity does not intervene to restrain the publication of words on a mere showing of their falsity, but only intervenes in those cases where restraint becomes an essential to preservation of business or other property interest threatened with impairment by illegal combination or by other tortuous acts.”
In Unger v. Landlords’ Management Corporation, 114 N. J. Eq. 68, 168 A. 229, the Court held: “2. Right to practice law is ‘property right’ existing by virtue of license, of letters patent, from state as sovereign, which may be protected from unlawful encroachment, threatening irreparable damage, by injunction.”
In Gariepy v. Springer, 318 Ill. App. 523, 48 N. E. 2d 572, upon which the majority relies heavily, the Court held: “3. Where there was no proof of any threat by defendant to continue to publish libelous matter concerning attorney, as defendant allegedly had previously done, and there was no conspiracy, intimidation, or coercion involved, an injunction would not lie to restrain continued publication.” Notice particularly the exceptions to the general rule pointed out by the Court.
In Cook v. John H. Mathis Co., 1 N. J. Super. 335, 61 A. 2d 585, the Court held: “1. Right of an individual to work at his chosen trade or profession is a property right, and court of equity will protect that right from unlawful interference by others.”
For other authorities in accord with the holding that equity has jurisdiction to protect property rights by injunction and, in some circumstances, personal rights, see Lawrence Trust Co. v. Sun-American Pub. Co., 245 Mass. 262, 139 N. E. 655; Davis v. New England Ry. Pub. Co., 203 Mass. 470, 89 N. E. 565; J. C. Pitman & Sons v. Pitman, 29 Del. Ch. 189, 47 A. 2d 721; Burke Transit Co. v. Queen City Coach Company, 228 N. C. 768, 47 S. E. 2d 297; Vanderbilt *523v. Mitchell, 72 N. J. Eq. 910, 67 A. 97, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 304; Black & Yates v. Mahogany Ass’n., 129 F. 2d 227, 148 A. L. R. 841; Pearce v. Pearce, 37 Wash. 2d 918, 226 P. 895; Starns v. Success Portrait Co., 28 F. Supp. 711; Lietzman v. Radio Broadcasting Station W. C. F. L., 282 Ill. App. 203; Equitable Relief Against Defamation and Injuries to Personality, 29 Harvard Law Review 640; Restatement of the Law of Torts, Section 942; Annotation 148 A. L. R. 860; Injunctions, Restraining Unlicensed Practice of Medicine, 40 W. Va. Law Review 87.
It seems clear to me that until the decision in the instant case, this Court has always moved toward the advanced view in approaching the question involved. Thus, in Buskirk v. Sanders, 70 W. Va. 363, 73 S. E. 937, the Court held: “2. The mere existence of a legal remedy is not of itself sufficient ground for refusing relief in equity by injunction; nor does the existence or non-existence of a remedy at law afford a test as to the right to-relief in equity. It must also appear that it is as practical and efficient to secure the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity.” “3. Though defendant has legal and equitable defenses he has the right as a general rule to go into a forum where he may have the benefit of all his defenses, and thereby be afforded complete protection against the claims of his adversary.” See Consumers Gas Utility Company v. Wright, 130 W. Va. 508, 44 S. E. 2d 584; Blossom Dairy Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 125 W. Va. 165, 23 S. E. 2d 645; Sloan v. Mitchell, 113 W. Va. 506, 168 S. E. 800; National Woolen Mills v. Local No. 350 of Journeymen Tailors Union, 100 W. Va. 627, 131 S. E. 357; Parker Paint and Wall Paper Co. v. Local Union No. 813, 87 W. Va. 631, 105 S. E. 911. In the Parketr Paint and Wall Paper Co. case, this Court held: “2. Where a person or combination of persons seeks to destroy another’s trade or business and by their actions influence or intimidate others with whom he has valuable contracts, causing said others to break such contracts and discharge his employees then actually performing the same, and the loss is actual, continuing and irreparable, injunction will lie to compel such *524person or combination of persons to desist from such acts.”
It now appears well settled that the right to practice law, the profession of law, or the established clientele of a lawyer', within the meaning of the cases cited, is “property” which may be protected by preventive relief. In Montgomery County Bar Ass’n v. Rinalducci, 329 Pa. 296, 197 A. 924, the Court held: “2. The right to practice law is a ‘property right’ as respects whether attorney in disbarment proceedings was denied a substantive right because proceedings were not initiated by the court and judges did not personally hear all the evidence.” See Unger v. Landlords’ Management Corporation, supra; Fitchette v. Taylor, 191 Minn. 582, 254 N. W. 910.
In Sloan v. Mitchell, 113 W. Va. 506, 168 S. E. 800, this Court held: “1. The right of a licensed physician and surgeon to practice his profession is a valuable franchise in the nature rof a property right to protect which he may sue in equity in the interest of himself and other physicians similarly situated, to enjoin a person from encroaching upon said right by engaging in the practice of medicine and surgery without a state license.” “2. A court is not powerless to prevent the doing of an act involving encroachment upon valuable franchise rights of others merely because such conduct is denounced as a public offense. State v. Lindsay, (Kan.) 116 Pac. 207.” A large number of cases are cited in the opinion supporting the holdings. See West Virginia State Medical Association v. Public Health Council, 125 W. Va. 152, 23 S. E. 2d 609.
In addition to the jurisdictional facts discussed above, equity should grant preventive relief in the instant case for two further reasons: The plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and the granting of the relief prayed for in the bill would avoid a multiplicity of suits. As I understand the majority opinion, it is to the effect that if either of such grounds exists, equity may take jurisdiction. Citing further authorities would not be helpful, especially in view of the holdings pointed out above.
In Buskirk v. Sanders, supra, in the points of the sylla*525bus quoted above, the Court held that to constitute an adequate remedy which would preclude a court of equity from exercising jurisdiction, the legal remedy must be “as practical and efficient to secure the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity”. In the opinion, the Court pointed out: “Though one have a defense at law, yet if it be doubtful, and he also have equitable defenses, and his legal defense would not be as adequate and certain as in a court of equity, he may go into equity, at once, without awaiting the result of the lawsuit, or even being compelled to confess judgment at law. Gas Co. v. Window Glass Co., 63 W. Va. 266; Eastern Oil Co. v. Coulehan, 65 W. Va. 531. ‘If any affirmative equitable relief is necessary to a full settlement of the controversy, and to a complete protection of defendant’s rights, a court of equity will interfere, and entertain a suit for such relief, and enjoin the action at law.’ 4 Pom. Eq. Jur., section 1363, page 2706; 22 Cyc. 799, 801, and cases cited; Knott v. Seamands, 25 W. Va. 99, 105; Dudley v. Miner’s Ex’or, 93 Va. 408, 25 S. E. 100, 101; High on Injunctions, (4th Ed.) sections 30, 66. The mere existence of a legal remedy, says Mr. High, section 30, ‘is not in itself sufficient ground for refusing relief in equity by injunction; nor does the existence or non-existence of a remedy at law afford a test as to the right to relief in equity. * * * It must also appear * * * that it is as practical and efficient to secure the ends of justice, and its proper and prompt administration as is the remedy in equity.’ ”
Under the view heretofore held by this Court, as expressed in the above quotation, or under any other view, I can not force myself to believe that plaintiff in the present suit has an adequate remedy at law. In the very nature of the business of his profession, as indeed of any other profession, damages can not be known or discovered, much less proved. Plaintiff may know that before the publication of the defamatory matter he owned and enjoyed a large and valuable law business, and that thereafter that business faded away, and that old clients, as well as new, no longer come to his office, or seek his assistance. But can he begin to establish by proof that the *526loss of business or of clients resulted from the publication? Though he could do so, what proof can ever be produced, with any degree of accuracy, as to the amount of damages? Can confidence and respect of the public be restored? Can the business be reestablished? If so, how long will it take? To hold that plaintiff, in such circumstances, has an adequate legal remedy which “afforded complete protection against the claims of his adversary” is, in my view, unjustifiable. It may be that in the days of the “Star Chamber” or during the time of “Scroggs”, when publication of defamatory statements was necessarily confined to small areas, or probably only among neighbors of the accused, that the determination of such damages could be made with fair accuracy. Those circumstances we can not definitely know, for they are now buried too deep in antiquity. Whatever the facts were out of which the rule contended for by the majority arose, I do not believe that equity should be brought to a dead end by trying to fit such a rule into modern day methods of publication and modern day conditions. Equity should be alive and of continuous growth, not impotent.
Avoidance of multiplicity of actions is another basis of equity jurisdiction for the granting of preventive relief, almost, if not entirely, universally recognized by courts. Considering as having been established, as we must on the demurrer, that the publications of the defamatory, false and malicious statements made by defendant are to be continued indefinitely, for the purpose of destroying plaintiff’s professional business, is plaintiff permitted or required to institute an action as to each publication, or as to such publications made over some definite period of time? Let us suppose that he successfully prosecutes an action, collects the judgment obtained, and the publication of the defamatory statements continues. Would he be entitled to prosecute further actions? How many actions would be necessary can not be determined. In such circumstances, I am forced to believe that a multiplicity of actions is certainly probable. In such circumstances, only a court of equity can take command and afford relief in one proceeding.
*527In my view, the facts in the instant case make it one peculiarly for equity. The facts make it something different from mere libel or slander. In addition to the falsity and maliciousness of the publications, there exists a conspiracy to destroy and an effort to coerce and intimidate. Moreover, such publications are to be continued indefinitely, until plaintiff and his professional business are completely and everlastingly destroyed. In addition, there is the direct charge made against plaintiff by defendant of being a “betrayer of clients”. Is it of no concern of a court of equity that the State may require long and expensive preparations to obtain a license to practice a profession and, after licensing an individual, permit the destruction of all that such license may mean, under a theory of adequate remedy for damages? Is the State itself not vitally interested in protecting such licensee from such malicious and unjustifiable attacks? To permit the false and malicious attacks indicated in the record in this case to continue, in my view, invites the lowering of the standard of the legal profession in the eyes of the public to that to which all hope we may never return.
Though argued at some length in defendant’s brief, I see herein no involvement of questions relating to freedom of speech. Neither is the provision of the State Constitution, Article III, Section 8, any impediment to equity jurisdiction. That provision merely provides that truth of alleged defamatory publications may be given in evidence, and constitutes truth a good defense in “civil suits” only if- “published with good motives, and for justifiable ends”. Does not the language necessarily and clearly imply that the publication of false and malicious statements is not protected? Neither has Code, 55-7-2, any application to the facts in this case. That statutory provision merely makes any words “construed as insults and tend to violence and breach of the peace” actionable, and permits a jury to pass thereon. It has nothing to do with protection of property rights, adequate remedy, or multiplicity of actions.
Being of the views indicated, I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the action of the Circuit Court of Mercer *528County in refusing to dissolve the temporary injunction and remand the cause for disposition on its merits.