Beek v. Nelson

• Decision Date: 05 June 1914
• Docket Number: No. 18558[99].,18558[99].
• Citation: 147 N.W. 668,126 Minn. 10
• Parties: BEEK v. NELSON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

126 Minn. 10

147 N.W. 668

BEEK

v.NELSON.

No. 18558[99].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 5, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Frederick M. Catlin, Judge.

Action by Joseph H. Beek against John C. Nelson.From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

Spoken words, directly disparaging a person in his calling or employment, are slanderous, and are actionable per se.In a complaint charging the use of such words, special damages need not be alleged.Schaefer v. Schoenborn, 101 Minn. 67, 111 N. W. 843, distinguished.Lawler & Mulally, of St. Paul, for appellant.

Denegre & McDermott, of St. Paul, for respondent.

HALLAM, J.

Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages for slander.Defendant demurred to the complaint.The demurrer was sustained.Plaintiff appealed.

The complaint alleges that, from 1902 to 1911, plaintiff filled the position of secretary and executive officer of the St. Paul Jobbers & Manufacturers' Association, and in 1911 accepted, and has since filled, the same position with the St. Paul Association of Commerce; that both of these organizations were organized by leading business and professional men of St. Paul for the purpose of advancing the financial and commercial interests of the city and co-operating with the public officials of the city in all matters relating to the advancement of the city; that the duties of plaintiff have consisted largely in representing the associations in hearings before the board of public works and the city council of the city in matters pertaining to the making of public improvements, and particularly to the paving of streets; that on June 12, 1913, in the discharge of said duty, plaintiff attended a meeting of the board of public works, called for the consideration of the paving of Summit avenue and of the kind of material to be selected for such work; that defendant, in the presence of others, maliciously said concerning plaintiff's character as such secretary and executive officer:

‘He is a paid hireling of the creosoted block combine.’‘He has never done a decent or respectable thing for St. Paul in the last 20 years.’‘He was employed for 20 years to do the dirty work of the Jobbers' Union.’

Plaintiff alleged no special damage.The trial court held that the words spoken were not actionable without allegation of special damage, and that therefore no cause of action was stated; that spoken words are under no circumstances actionable per se, unless they charge or impute a crime.In this the court erred.

It is clear that the words mentioned disparage plaintiff in his employment or calling.They charge him with serving two masters; they impute want of integrity and dishonorable methods of work and conduct unbefitting him for the position he holds.There are two classes of defamatory words: First, those which are actionable in themselves; and, second, those which become so, in consequence of some special damage which they have caused.Where the natural consequence of the words is a damage, they are in themselves actionable, without allegation or proof of special damage.Applying this rule, it is generally considered that words that charge a crime are actionable per se, and, by the great weight of authority, spoken words directly disparaging a person in his employment or calling are held to be actionable per se, even though they do not charge a crime.Newell on Slander & Libel (2d Ed.)p. 168;Odgers on Libel & Slander (5th Ed.)p. 377;Folkard, Slander & Libel (7th Ed.)p. 3;25 Cyc. 346;Vial v. Larson, 132 Iowa, 208, 109 N. W. 1007;Morasse v. Brochu, 151 Mass. 567, 25 N. E. 74,8 L. R. A. 524, 21 Am. St. Rep. 474;Bray v. Callihan, 155 Mo. 43, 55 S. W. 865;Fitzgerald v. Young, 89 Neb. 693, 132 N. W. 127;Fowles v. Bowen, 30 N. Y. 20;Montgomery v. New Era Printing Co., 229 Pa. 165, 78 Atl. 85, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 375;Gross Coal Co. v. Rose, 126 Wis. 24, 105 N. W. 225,2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 741, 110 Am. St. Rep. 894,5...