Bland v. Lawyer-Cuff Co.
Decision Date | 12 February 1918 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 8144 |
Citation | 72 Okla. 128,178 P. 885,1918 OK 95 |
Parties | BLAND v. LAWYER-CUFF CO. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Libel and Slander--"Conditionally Privileged Communication"--Question for Jury--Evidence.
A "conditionally privileged communication" is one made in good faith upon any subject-matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has or honestly believes he has a duty to perform, and which, without the occasion upon which it is made, would be defamatory and actionable; and where there is no dispute as to the circumstances under which a publication was made, it is a legal question for the court to determine whether the occasion is such as to bring the alleged defamatory publication within the protection afforded to "conditionally privileged communications," but whether the act which gives the publication the privileged character claimed for it is established by the evidence is a question for the jury, and where the evidence is conflicting it is proper for the court to instruct the jury as to what facts constitute a conditionally privileged communication, and leave them to say whether those facts are proven.
2. Release--Joint Tort-Feasors.
An acknowledgement by the plaintiff of satisfaction against one of two defendants sued as joint tort-feasors will not release the other unless such instrument shows that it was intended to have such effect.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Edward Dewes Oldfield, Judge.
Suit by the Lawyer-Cuff Company against W. F. Bland and R. N. McConnell. Cause dismissed as to defendant McConnell, and judgment for plaintiff against defendant Bland, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Chas. H. Garnett, for plaintiff in error.
Grant Stanley, for defendant in error.
¶1 This was a suit instituted by Lawyer-Cuff Company, a corporation, against R. N. McConnell and W. F. Bland in the district court of Oklahoma county on the 9th day of January, 1914, for damages for alleged libel. Four causes of action were alleged in plaintiff's petition. A demurrer, however, was sustained as to the first cause of action. The plaintiff, in substance, in each of the remaining causes of action, alleged that the plaintiff was engaged in the mercantile business at Maud, in this state, with a capital stock of $ 50,000, and that in conduct of its business it was necessary to obtain credit; that it was a solvent concern, and had a good reputation, and that McConnell operated a law office, collection agency, and reporting agency at Oklahoma City, and defendant R. N. McConnell was engaged in sending out reports as to the financial condition and responsi- bility of persons engaged in the mercantile business in different towns of Oklahoma, including Maud, and that Bland was employed by McConnell for said purpose; alleged that on the 10th day of May, 1913, defendants falsely, wickedly, and maliciously wrote a letter concerning plaintiff to the Huiskamp Bros., at Keokuk, Iowa, as follows to wit:
¶2 And did on the 20th day of May, 1913, falsely, wickedly, and maliciously write a letter and mail to, and say of and concerning said plaintiff to, the Huiskamp Bros. Company, of Keokuk, Iowa, as follows, to wit:
¶3 And did on the 7th day of September, 1913, falsely, wickedly, and maliciously write a night lettergram, and send to the Huiskamp Bros Company, of Keokuk, Iowa, saying of and concerning said plaintiff as follows, to wit:
¶4 And did on the 10th day of September, 1913, falsely, wickedly, and maliciously write a letter and mail to, and say of and concerning said plaintiff to, the Huiskamp Bros. Company, of Keokuk, Iowa, as follows, to wit:
¶5 And did on the 16th day of September, 1913, falsely, wickedly, and maliciously write a letter and mail to, and say of said plaintiff to the Huiskamp Bros. Company of Keo- kuk, Iowa, as follows, to wit:
¶6 And alleged that plaintiffs were injured in their good name, fame, and credit, and brought into public scandal, infamy, and disgrace, and their credit destroyed, to the damage of plaintiffs in the sum of $ 10,000.
¶7 The other causes of action are practically the same except as to the libelous communications, which were based upon two other annoymous letters, which are as follows:
¶8 Defendants answered denying the material allegations pleaded; admitted that McConnell was engaged in the business alleged, and that Bland was employed as alleged; pleaded the truth of the statement in the first cause of action; pleaded that it was a privileged communication; and denied the writing of the anonymous letters. The plaintiff dismissed his cause of action against the defendant R. N. McConnell, and the cause proceeded to trial to a jury as against the defendant W. F. Bland. Judgment was rendered for $ 6,000 actual damages and $ 4,500 exemplary damages against defendant W. F. Bland, and cause is brought here for review.
¶9 The parties will be designated as they appeared in the court below.
¶10 Defendant complains of the trial court below under five assignments, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Natrona Power Company v. Clark
...... Fletcher, 79 Kan. 139; 98 P. 784, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.). 618; El Paso & S. R. Co. v. Darr (Tex. Civ. App.), . 93 S.W. 166; Bland v. Lawyer-Cuff Co. (Okl.) 72. Okla. 128, 178 P. 885; Home Telephone Co. v. Fields, . 150 Ala. 306; 43 So. 711, Brown v. Pacific Coast. Agency, ......
-
Am. Nat'l Bank of Enid v. Crews, Case Number: 28650
......See Bland v. Lawyer-Cuff Co., 72 Okla. 128, 178 P. 885; City of Wetumka v. Cromwell-Franklin Oil Co., 171 Okla. 565, 43 P.2d 434; Safety Cab Co. v. Fair, 181 ......
-
Kirkpatrick v. Chrysler Corp., 81604
...... Page 129 . against other tortfeasors. In the early case of Bland v. Lawyer-Cuff Co., 72 Okla. 128, 178 P. 885, 889-890 (1918), we allowed a plaintiff to further proceed against a tortfeasor after dismissing his ......
-
Moss v. City of Oklahoma City, 76982
...... See All American Bus Lines v. Saxon, 197 Okla. 395, 172 P.2d 424, 428 (1946) (general rule recognized but not followed); See also Bland v. Lawyer-Cuff Co., 72 Okla. 128, 178 P. 885, 890 (1918) (recognizing, but not following, unspecified earlier cases that were committed to doctrine ......