
    Weil v. Nevin et al.
    An action on the case for libel was brought July 19, 1884, against T. W.. Nevin and others, “proprietors and publishers of The Pittsburgh Leader, under the name and doing business as the Leader Publishing Co.” On Oct. 8, 1885, the plaintiff moved to amend the record by substituting The Leader Publishing Co.r a corporation instead of the individuals named as defendants. The amendment was refused. On the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence the alleged libellousarticle and requested the court to charge that the assistant editor, one of the defendants named, was liable in damages for its publication. The court refused so-to charge, because the suit was against partners. Held that the action of the-court was proper.
    Per Curiam. — The general editor may be bound to know all that goes into-a paper of which he is the supervisor, but not so an assistant editor, for Ms powers are limited; hence, he can only be held for what he himself does or knowingly permits to be done.
    An amendment of the record, in an action on the case against individuals-for libel, will not be allowed by the substitution of the name of a corporation, after the statute of limitations has barred an action against the corporation..
    Oct. 29, 1888.
    Error, No. 179, Oct. T. 1888, to O. P. No. % Allegheny Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for the defendants in an action of trespass on the case for libel, at Oct. T. 1884,. No. 72.
    The action was begun July 19, 1884, by summons,'service of which was accepted by the defendants’ attorney, against the defendants, described therein as “ proprietors and publishers of the Pittsburgh Leader, under the name of and doing business as the ‘ Leader-Publishing Co.’ ”
    The cause of action set forth in the declaration was the publication, June 25,18S4, of an article in the Pittsburgh Leader quoting an article in a German paper which charged the plaintiff with having, in his capacity of clergyman, collected $3,000, and with embezzling the money.
    The plaintiff made the following offer, at the trial, before White, J.:
    “And now, to wit, December 5, 1887, plaintiff, by his counsel, moves to amend the praecipe and narr. by substituting c The Leader Publishing Co.,’ a corporation under and by virtue of the laws of Pennsylvania, instead of the individuals named as defendants.”
    “ Plaintiff offers to prove by the witness on the stand, in support of above amendment, that the persons sued were, at the time, the corporators and directors of the Leader Publishing Co., a corporation; that, by the charter of said corporation, the language-used in setting forth the object of the corporation is the same ini substance as that in the praecipe and narr. in this case, describing defendants; and that Major A. M. Brown, who accepted service for defendants in this case, was the regular attorney for said Leader-Publishing Co., a corporation, at that time; this for the purpose of showing that the corporation had notice of the suit.
    “ Defendants’ counsel protested that the facts stated in the offer, so called, were incorrect, and could not be proved as alleged; objected to the proposed “amendment,” because it was not aa amendment, but a proposed change of the parties defendant by the substitution of an entirely different person, to wit, a corporation, which had not been served and was not in court, and that said corporation could not be brought into court except by due process of law.” Objection sustained and exception. [1.]
    The above offer is made one of the assignments of error, but this record is not printed in the appendix to plaintiff’s paper book. The abstract of proceedings in the court below shows: “ Oct. 8, 1885, motion to amend by striking out names of individuals, so that the action would stand against the corporation; juror withdrawn and cause continued. Feb. 18, 1886, on argument list, and amendment refused.”
    The case came on for trial Dec. 5, 1887, when the plaintiff requested the court to charge :
    “ 2. That it having been proved that T. W. Nevin was assistant editor of the Pittsburgh Evening Leader at the time of its publication, he is answerable in damages for the said publication in this suit.” Ans. “ The second ¡Joint is refused as applicable to this case, which is a suit against several persons as partners.” [2.]
    The court instructed the jury to find for the defendants [3] ; and, in the general charge, said, inter alia: “In this case the questions involved are for the court. The defendants named in this action were sued as partners, and the service upon them was as partners; while the evidence shows that the Leader Publishing Co. was a corporation, and not a partnership.” [4.]
    The verdict and judgment were for the defendants.
    
      The assignments of error specified, 1, the rejection of the plaintiff’s offer, quoting it; 2, the refusal of his second point, quoting it; 3, the action of the court in directing a vercfict for the defendants, quoting the language; and, 4, the portion of the charge given above, quoting it.
    
      W. D. Moore, with him F. C. McGirr, for plaintiff in error.
    The defendants were not named as partners. Naming the corpora-tors was, at best, surplusage. The amendment asked was to strike out the names, leaving the corporation, which had actual notice, alone as defendant.
    Under the Act of May 4, 1852, §2, P. L. 574, a name of a defendant omitted by mistake may be inserted at any stage of the ■case, and without notice, and he may be brought in by an alias writ, or by a rule to appear and plead. Leonard v. Parker, 72 Pa. 236. The Act of April 12, 1858, §1, P. L. 243, authorizes the striking out of a defendant’s name where too many are included, so that the case may be tried on its merits.
    For a libel published in a newspaper, the proprietor, editor, printer and author are all liable to be sued separately or together. Odger’s on Libel and Slander, *157; Townsbend on Slander and Libel, 157, note 2; Watts v. Fraser, 7 Carr. & P. 369.
    This was an action of tort, in which a verdict against any one of defendants could be sustained.
    
      
      A. M. Brown, for defendants in error.
    An amendment like that proposed will not be allowed: Meyers v. Elkins, C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., 7 W. N. C. 280. Especially since it would deprive the defendants of their costs. Rehfuss v. Gross, 108 Pa. 521; Rangler v. Hummel, 37 Pa. 130. And avoid the bar of the statute of limitations. First National Bank v. Shoemaker, 117 Pa. 91.
    Jan. 7, 1889.
   Per Curiam,

The amendment proposing to substitute the name of the corporation was properly refused, for the reason that, at the time the motion was made for that purpose, the statute interposed an effectual bar to an action against it.

The second assignment cannot be sustained, because there was no offer to prove that T. W. Nevin knew anything about the publication of the alleged libel. The general editor may be bound to know all that goes into the paper of which he has the supervision, but not so an assistant editor, for his powers are limited; hence, he can only be held for what he himself does, or knowingly permits to be done.

The judgment is affirmed.  