The Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus company v Hawkins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1859 |
| Date | 24 January 1859 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 769
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 201, 5 Jur (N. S) 226, 7 W. R 265. Followed, South Helton. Coal Company v North Eastern News Association, [1894] 1 Q. B. 133; Willmott v. London Road Cat Company, [1910] 2 Ch. 531
*H ft N. 87. METROPOLITAN SALOON OMNIBUS COMPANY V. HAWKINS 769 [87] the metropolitan saloon omnibus company (limited) v hawkins. Jan. 24, 1859-A Joint Stock Company, incorporated under the 19 & 20 Viet c. 47, may maintain an action for libel against a shaieholder in the Company. [S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 201 , 5 Jur (N. S ) 226 , 7 W. R 265. Followed, South Helton. Coed Company v North Eastein News Association, [1894] 1 Q. B. 133; Willmott v. London Road Cat Company, [1910] 2 Ch. 531 ] Declaration. The Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Company (Limited), duly incorporated by the style and name aforesaid under and by virtue of the provisions of a certain act of parliament &c (19 & 20 Viet. c. 47), by &c , their attorney, sue &c. . For that the defendant falsely and maliciously did publish in a certain letter addressed and sent by the defendant to one R Be van the words following (The declaration then set out the letter, which imputed to the Company insolvency, mismanagement, and an improper and dishonest carrying on of its affairs.) The declaration concluded with an allegation that by means of the committing of the grievances by the defendant the Company were greatly damaged, injured, and brought into public disgrace and contempt, and the value of the property of the Company and of the shares therein was depreciated. Plea. That, before and at the time of the committing of the grievance, the defendant was a shareholder in the Company, and has ever since continued to be, and was at the commencement of this suit, and now is, a shareholder in the said Company. Demurrer and joinder therein. Edwards, in support of the demurrer To an action for libel by a Company incorporated under the 19 & 20 Viet. c. 47 it is no answer that the defendant is a shareholder in the Company. If it weie, this consequence would follow, that a person who bought a share in a joint stock bank might with impunity publish any slander against £t. For [88] the purposes of this action the defendant is a stranger to the corporation. [Pollock, C. B. A corporation may maintain an action against one of its members to recover a penalty incurred by violating a bye-law.] The Court then called on Stammers to support the plea. First, this is not the case of a municipal corporation, in which the individual members are merged in the corporate body; but it is a quasi corporation created by the Joint Stock Companies Act (19 & 20 Viet. c. 47, s. 4), for the purposes of trade, and which is termed in the Act "a partnership." In Ernest v. Nicholls (6 H. L. 419) Lord Wensleydale said, with reference to companies of this kind: " The legislature then devised the plan of incorporating these companies in a manner unknown to the common law, with special powers of management and liabilities." So, in Smith v The Hull Glass Company (8 C B. 676), Wilde, J., said : " I am not aware that what is called a joint stock tiading company, if in fact a partnership exists between the shareholders, differs from an ordinary partnership in this respect." Again, in Ridley v. The Plymouth Grinding and Baling Company (2 Exch. 711), Parke, B., speaks of these joint stock companies as quasi corporations, and for some purposes a partnership [Channell, B. Those were cases of contract.] Though the 13th section of the 19 & 20 Viet, c 47, s. 4, uses the words "body corporate," jet the companies created under it are in the same position as under the 7 & 8 Viet. c. 110. Therefore the Company, being only a quasi coiporation, is for the purposes of this action a partnership, and a member of it cannot sue himself Stoiy on Paitner-ahip, 220, Mo/at and Otheis v Van Mtllmgen (2 B. & P. 124, note), Neale v Turton (4 Bing. 149). [89] [Martin, B Suppose this had been an ordinary paitnership , I do not see why the other partners might not have maintained an action against one member who libelled the partnership (see Robinson v. Marchant, 7 Q. B 918).] All the shares in the Company might vest in one person, and it would be absurd to say that he could be at the same time both plaintiff and defendant. Secondly, the declaration is also bad on the ground that a quasi corporation can only maintain an action in respect of matters necessarily incident to the purpose for which it was incorporated : Paine v The Guaidians of the Strand Union (8 Q. B. 326) [Pollock, C. B How are they to obtain redress for an injury done to their business by a h'bel ?] They have a remedy by indictment or criminal information. [Pollock, C. B. That would not repay them the money which they may have lost through the libel.] Thirdly, if this Company is to be treated fe anything more than a trading coiporation, there is an entire merger of its personal Ex. Div. xni.-25 770 METROPOLITAN SALOON OMNIBUS COMPANY V. HAWKINS 4 H. & N 90 character. There is no instance of a corporation having maintained an action for libel or slander. Treby, arguendo in the case of The Quo Watranto against The City of London (8 Hokv. St. Tr. 1039, 1138), said "a corporation is but a name, an ena lationis, a thing, that cannot see or be seen, and indeed is no substance, nor can do or suffer wrong." Under the Civil law, the ground of action was the injuiia, the personal insult or contumely offered to the party defamed . Dig. lib. 47, tit. 10,1. 5, j 9, 1 Staik. on Slander, xxxi. In like manner, all the definitions of libel in our books describe it as an injury affecting personal character : The Case de Libellis Fanwsis (5 Rep. 124 b.), 2 Hawk. P. C c. 73, s 9, Bell v. Stone (1 Bos. & P 331), Com. Dig "Libel " (A.), Bac. Abr " Libel." In Bradley v. Methivyn (2 Selw. N. P. 1039, note, 10th ed.) Lord Haidwicke, C. J, obserred [90] that " the crime in a libel does not arise merely from the scandal, but from the tendency which it has to occasion a breach of the peace." A corporation has no character which can be injuied by slander. [Watson, B., referred to Williams v. Beaumont (10 Bing. 260; 3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd v Norman Wright and Others
-
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Wright and Another
...of this kind should not be allowed in the present circumstances: Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co v Hawkins (1859) 4 H & N 87, 146; 157 ER 769, 792; Zierenberg and Wife v Labouchere [1893] 2 QB 183; and Yorkshire Provident Life Assurance Co v Gilbert & Rivington [1895] 2 QB 148. Although thes......
- Lim Lip Eng v Ong Ka Chuan (as a public officer of a society registered as Malaysian Chinese Association)
-
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd
...to protect its lawful activities and property. As Pollock C.B. in 1859 in Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co. v. Hawkins [1859] 4 H.&N. 87, 157 E.R. 769, in a passage cited by Morland J., said: "That a corporation at common law can sue in respect of a libel there is no doubt. It would be monstr......
-
Table of Cases
...491, ChD 90 Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Garrod [1962] 3 All ER 1103, QBD 83 Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co Ltd v Hawkins (1859) 4 H & N 87, 157 ER 769, 28 LJ Ex 201, Exch Ct 45 Miles v Clarke [1953] 1 WLR 537, [1953] 1 All ER 779, 97 Sol Jo 209, ChD 50, 51, 55 Miller v Miller (1869) LR 8 Eq ......
-
Separate Legal Personality
...is owned by the partners on behalf 6 See, in relation to companies, Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co Ltd v Hawkins (1859) 4 Hurl & N 87, 157 ER 769 and South Hetton Coal Co Ltd v North-Eastern News Association [1894] 1 QB 133. 46 Partnership and LLP Law of each other. 7 For example, in Macaur......