TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boynton v. Shaw Stocking Co.

Seth W. Boynton v. Shaw Stocking Company

Boynton v. Shaw Stocking Co., 15 N.E. 507 (Mass. 1888)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 1, 1888
Judges
Allen
Citations
15 N.E. 507146 Mass. 2191888 Mass. LEXIS 230
Headnotes
Libel — Construction — Character. The publication of an article by a manufacturer cautioning the public not to form an opinion of goods of his manufacture from those advertised by a tradesman as of “ first quality,” since they were sold to him as “ damaged,” is not actionable as an imputation on the tradesman’s character.
Summary
Tobt for an alleged libel contained in the following words: “ Caution: An opinion of Shaw knit hosiery should not be formed from the navy blue stockings advertised as of ‘first quality ’ by Messrs. S. W. Boynton & Co. at 12-’- cts., since we sold that firm at less than ten cents a pair some lots which were damaged in the dye-house. [Signed"] Shaw Stocking Company. Lowell, May 29, 1886.” At the trial in the Superior Court, before Thompson, J., the plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove the following facts : The plaintiff was the proprietor of a dry goods store, and did a large business in Waltham, under the style of S. W. Boynton & Co., his customers also coming from the surrounding towns and cities. He had for several years purchased stockings manufactured by the defendant. On May 3,1886, one Guild, who sold goods of the defendant on commission, called at the plaintiff’s place of business and represented that he had a large stock of navy blue first quality Shaw knit stockings to sell, which were in such sizes that the defendant would sell them cheap, as it desired to reduce its very large stock. The plaintiff examined samples of the stock then in Guild’s possession, which were first quality navy blue Shaw knit stockings, and, after being assured by Guild that the stock was like the samples and of the very first quality, purchased one hundred dozen pairs. After the receipt of the stockings, and after examining them, the plaintiff caused to be inserted in six issues of “ The Charles River Laborer,” a weekly paper published in Waltham, and having a large circulation in that place and in surrounding towns and cities, the following advertisement: “ Shaw Knit Hose, navy blue, size 8 to 11, first quality goods, at 12J cts. per pair.” Afterwards, the defendant caused the alleged libel to be inserted in six issues of “ The Waltham Daily Tribune,” a newspaper published in Waltham, and having a large circulation therein and in the surrounding cities and towns. The plaintiff also offered evidence tending to show that the stockings had not been damaged in the dye-house, and that they were not damaged in any other respect, but were first quality stockings, which the defendant well knew. On the evidence, the judge ruled that the action could not be maintained, and directed a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Allen

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

C. Allen, J.

An action will not lie for mere disparagement of the plaintiff’s goods, without averment and proof of special damage. Dooling v. Budget Publishing Co. 144 Mass. 258 . But the plaintiff contends that the words used by the defendant contain an imputation upon his character,- and that they imply that he was deceiving the public by advertising goods as of first quality which he knew were damaged. The question, therefore, is this.: Taking the words in their natural sense, and without a forced or strained construction, do they contain this imputation ? If the words may fairly bear that meaning, then the case should have been submitted to the jury; otherwise not. Twombly v. Monroe, 136 Mass. 464 . Simmons v. Mitchell, 6 App. Cas. 156. Capital & Counties’ Bank v. Henty, 7 App. Cas. 741, 744, 771, 772, 790, 793.

We are of opinion that the words, fairly construed, do not bear that meaning, and that, in order to reach such a construction, it is necessary to include something which the defendant did not say, and which its words do not imply. No doubt a case might be imagined where, from peculiar circumstances, — as, for example, from the nature of the article offered for sale, or from the long continued habit of selling goods of a different character or quality from that represented, — it would be a natural inference from a charge otherwise like that which is the subject of this action, that the party was practising fraud or imposition, or was guilty of trickery or meanness. In the present case, such an inference does not naturally arise, and the object of the defendant’s advertisement, judging from its language, appears to have been rather to uphold and maintain the character of its goods than to attack the plaintiff’s character. The court might properly withdraw the case from the jury. See Boynton v. Remington, 3 Allen, 397 ; Evans v. Harlow, 5 Q. B. 624; Solomon v. Lawson, 8 Q. B. 823. Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 11893: 11899: 11901: 11903: 11906: 11913: 11929: 21932: 11973: 11977: 11988: 118882026peak 1929 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Holmes v. Clisby45 S.E. 684 (Ga. 1903)
  2. Colby Haberdashers, Inc. v. Bradstreet Co.166 N.E. 550 (Mass. 1929)
  3. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.57 F.R.D. 528 (D. Mass. 1973)
  4. Henkel v. Schaub94 Mich. 542 (1893)
  5. Peck v. Wakefield Item Co.183 N.E. 70 (Mass. 1932)
  6. Robinson v. Coulter215 Mass. 566 (1913)

Most recent

  1. MiGi, Inc. v. Gannett Massachusetts Broadcasters, Inc.519 N.E.2d 283 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988)
  2. Albano v. Ide363 N.E.2d 283 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977)
  3. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.57 F.R.D. 528 (D. Mass. 1973)
  4. Peck v. Wakefield Item Co.183 N.E. 70 (Mass. 1932)
  5. Colby Haberdashers, Inc. v. Bradstreet Co.166 N.E. 550 (Mass. 1929)
  6. Briggs v. Coykendall224 N.W. 202 (N.D. 1929)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Twombly v. Monroe, 136 Mass. 464 (1884) 47
Dooling v. Budget Publ'g Co., 10 N.E. 809 (Mass. 1887) 27

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list