Friedenberg v. Times Pub. Co.
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Newspaper Printing Corp. v. Galbreath (Tenn. 1979)
- Burke v. Kingsport Publishing Corporation (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1974)
- Modla v. Tribune Publishing Company (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971)
- J. J. Gordon, Inc. v. Worcester Telegram Publishing Co. (Mass. 1961)
- Fisher v. News-Journal Co. (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1941)
- Shuck v. Carroll Daily Herald (Iowa 1933)
- Poughkeepsie Buying Service, Inc. v. Poughkeepsie Newspapers, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1954)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Defendant is the publisher of a newspaper. Plaintiffs are merchants who purchased at sheriff’s sale the entire stock and fixtures of “Zodiag’s, Incorporated.” The latter had not paid its advertising bills due defendant. When, therefore, these plaintiffs sought to advertise such stock of goods in defendant’s pages, the latter refused to accept the advertisement; and thereupon plaintiffs sue defendant for $10,000 actual damages, $1,000 for humiliation and worry, and $1,000 exemplary damages.
The defendant excepted that plaintiffs’ petition disclosed no cause of action. And the trial judge maintained the exception and dismissed the suit.
The weight of authority is that the publishing of a newspaper is a strictly private enterprise, and the publishers thereof are free to contract and deal or refuse to contract and deal with whom tliey please. Mack v. Costello, 32 S. D. 511, 143 N. W. 950, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 384 ; Commonwealth v. Boston Transcript Co., 249 Mass. 477, 144 N. E. 400, 35 A. L. R. 1 ; Journal of Com. Pub. Co. v. Tribune Co. (C. C. A.) 286 F. 111. And at any rate, it is for the Legislature, and not for the courts, to declare that a business has become impressed with a public use. 6 R. C. L. 227, § 219.
There is, however, one case holding the contrary doctrine, to wit, Uhlman v. Sherman, 22 Ohio N. P. (N. S.) 225. But we prefer to follow the weight of authority.
Decree.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.