Parker v. TITLE & TRUST COMPANY

Decision Date12 October 1956
Docket NumberNo. 14201.,14201.
Citation237 F.2d 423
PartiesChet L. PARKER and Lois M. Parker, Appellants, v. TITLE & TRUST COMPANY et al., Appellees. Walter STEGMANN, Appellant, v. TITLE & TRUST COMPANY et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Cake, Jaureguy & Hardy, Nicholas Jaureguy, Portland, Or., for appellants Parker.

Phillips, Coughlin, Buell & Phillips, James K. Buell, Hart, Spencer, McCulloch, Rockwood & Davies, Manley B. Strayer, Cleveland C. Cory, Portland, Or., for appellee Title & Trust Co.

Krause, Evans & Lindsay, Dennis Lindsay, Portland, Or., for appellees Winans.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and BONE and POPE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellees Winans, following our decision in this case, 233 F.2d 505, filed a petition for rehearing asserting, among other things, that we had mistaken the Oregon law in holding that certain statements made by the Parkers for which they were held liable to the Winans, were absolutely privileged under the doctrine applied in Strycker v. Levell, 183 Or. 59, 190 P.2d 922. The petition calls our attention to the later case of Grubb v. Johnson, 205 Or. 624, 289 P.2d 1067, 1074, not previously cited by the parties, and asserts that this case proves us wrong as to the Oregon law. We requested counsel for appellants Parker and Stegmann to supply us with briefs upon this point, and they have done so.

Careful study of the Grubb case convinces us that it has no bearing upon the question presented in this case, and that our original opinion was right in holding these statements absolutely privileged. In the Grubb case the defamatory matter was contained in a letter written by defendants, who operated an insurance agency, to the Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The plaintiff Grubb had been employed by defendants as an insurance solicitor, and in that capacity had been licensed under the Oregon statute. Laws Ore.1947, c. 373, § 1 et seq. The statute also provided that the Commissioner was required to revoke that license upon the written request of an employer. In the letter referred to, defendants directed the Commissioner to revoke the license to solicit insurance on the defendant's behalf. They then included in or added to the letter a statement that plaintiff should be denied any future license or privilege because he had misappropriated some of the defendants' funds to his own use. The defendants asserted that they were not liable for this defamatory statement on the ground that their letter was an absolutely privileged communication. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ramstead v. Morgan
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1959
    ...witnesses, and affiants are included within the privilege. Parker v. Title & Trust Co., 9 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 505, rehearing denied 9 Cir., 237 F.2d 423 (party); Strycker v. Levell & Peterson, 1948, 183 Or. 59, 190 P.2d 922 (party and affiant); Cooper v. Phipps, 1893, 24 Or. 357, 33 P. 985......
  • Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 20, 1983
    ...v. Cartwright, 355 F.2d 32 (8th Cir.1966) (Iowa law); Parker v. Title and Trust Co., 233 F.2d 505 (9th Cir.) rehearing denied, 237 F.2d 423 (9th Cir.1956) (Oregon law); Chard v. Galton, 277 Or. 109, 559 P.2d 1280 (1977); Binder v. The Oregon Bank, 284 Or. 89, 585 P.2d 655 (1978); and Lerett......
  • Pioneer Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Lucas
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • January 12, 1978
    ...Loan and Investm. Corp. v. Lawyers Title Ins. Co., supra, is Parker v. Title and Trust Co., 233 F.2d 505 (9 Cir. 1956), reh. den. 237 F.2d 423 (1956), where, under facts closely resembling those in the present case, the court rejected the argument that the insured had no duty to disclose de......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT