Court Opinion

ID: 6422061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:00:46.826876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:49.188653
License: Public Domain

Field, J.
The plaintiff in his declaration does not allege that, by the acts of the defendant, he has been deprived of the benefit of any contract he had made, or of any property in existence and in his possession, or that the defendant published his directory for 1885 as a directory prepared and published by the plaintiff; and does not bring his case within such decisions as Lumley v. Gye, 2 El. & Bl. 216, Marsh v. Billings, 7 Cush. 322, Thomson v. Winchester, 19 Pick. 214, Blofeld v. Payne, 4 B. & Ad. 410, Morison v. Salmon, 2 M. & G. 385, and Sykes v. Sykes, 3 B. & C. 541.
He does not allege that he had any copyright in the previous publications which the publication of the defendant infringed; and the courts of the Commonwealth have no jurisdiction over *585infringements of copyright. If each publication of a directory by the plaintiff every two years was a separate publication, then the plaintiff’s declaration amounts to this, — that he intended to publish a directory for 1885, whereby he expected to make profits, but, by reason of the acts of the defendant, he abandoned such an intention, and lost the profits he otherwise would have made. But an intention in the mind of the plaintiff to compile and publish a directory is not property, and the abandonment of such an intention is not a loss of property. Bradley v. Fuller, 118 Mass. 239.
An attempt has been made to bring this case within what is called slander of goods, manufactured and sold by another. See Western Counties Manure Co. v. Lawes Chemical Manure Co. L. R. 9 Ex. 218. This implies that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of making and selling directories, and that the defendant made statements disparaging the plaintiff’s business. We think that the declaration does not show that the business of the plaintiff, in publishing a new directory every two years, was a continuous business. The directory to be published in 1885 was to be a new compilation and publication. From the nature of the book, perhaps this could not well be otherwise. New subscribers and new advertisements were to be obtained. We have been shown no case where it has been held that a false statement, that the plaintiff had gone out of business, or sold out his business to the defendant, was an actionable slander of a person in his trade; but upon this we express no opinion. It may be said that such statements tend to injure a man in his business, because they tend to prevent customers from resorting to him for trade, and to injure the value of the good will of his business. However this may be, the difficulty is in attaching good will as a valuable thing to the publication every two years of a new directory. Such a directory could be published by anybody. It is perhaps a question of degree whether the publication by the plaintiff had been so frequent and regular that there can be said to be a good will that would be protected in law. There is no allegation of any continuing contract, express or implied, of subscribing for, or advertising in, the directories, as a publication periodically issued ; there is no allegation of any place of business to which customers resorted to purchase directories. *586Until the plaintiff had entered upon the compilation of the directory for 1885, we do n’ot think that there was any business of publishing a directory for 1885 carried on by the plaintiff, or anything that, for example, could have been sold as a going concern by an assignee in insolvency, if the plaintiff had become an insolvent debtor. The cases upon liability for wrongful interference with the business of another are largely collected in Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555; but in that ease there was an actual business, with the carrying on of which the defendant wrongfully interfered. The declaration in this case, indeed, alleges that the plaintiff made his preparations for compiling and publishing a directory for 1885, but it does not allege what those preparations were, or that they were anything valuable. The averment that he “ has been put to great loss and expense in preparing for said compilation and publication,” near the end of the declaration, appears to be a part of the damages.
The plaintiff cites Swan v. Tappan, 5 Cush. 104; but there the declaration was held insufficient, because there was no allegation of special damage. The declaration in the present case cannot well be distinguished in this respect from the declaration in Swan v. Tappan, but we do not deem it necessary to reconsider the decision in that case on this point. There, the plaintiff was actually engaged in selling his book, which had already been printed and put upon the market, and the action was the ordinary action for the malicious disparagement of the goods of another, manufactured and kept for sale.
The plaintiff relies upon Benton v. Pratt, 2 Wend. 385, which perhaps may be considered as an extreme case. See Randall v. Hazelton, 12 Allen, 412, 417. In Benton v. Pratt, Seagraves and Wilson, at Allentown, had orally agreed to purchase of the plaintiff two hundred hogs, at the market price, if delivered within three or four weeks, and they had not been previously supplied; and, “ about the time for the delivery,” the plaintiff was proceeding with his di-ove of hogs to Allentown for the purpose of delivering to them two hundred hogs. The defendant, by his falsehood and deceit, intentionally prevented the performance of this contract, by persuading Seagraves and Wilson that the plaintiff was not intending to drive his hogs to Allentown, whereby they were induced to buy the hogs of the defendant, instead of *587buying the hogs of the plaintiff, as they otherwise would have done. The court say, that it was “not material whether the contract of the plaintiff with Seagraves and Wilson was binding upon them or not; ” but the agreement, if there was an agreement, although not in writing, was an actual offer by Seagraves and Wilson, not revoked, and which they would have performed, and the plaintiff was in the actual possession of the property which Seagraves and Wilson had offered to buy, and was actually proceeding to deliver this property to them, in accordance with their offer.
The fatal objection to the present case is, that it is entirely problematical whether the plaintiff would actually have published a directory if the defendant had not made the fraudulent misrepresentations alleged. The plaintiff abandoned his intention to compile and publish a directory in consequence of the defendant’s acts; but this, upon the principles stated in Bradley v. Fuller, ubi supra, and the cases therein cited, is not sufficient to support an action.

Judgment affirmed.