Davis v. Bakewell
| Decision Date | 27 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | 4653. |
| Citation | 255 F. 960 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. BAKEWELL et ux. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Benjamin Carter, of Washington, D.C., and Christian F. Schneider, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
Jesse McDonald, of St. Louis, Mo. (Arnold Just, of St. Louis, Mo on the brief), for defendants in error.
Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and TRIEBER, District Judge.
This case presents by demurrer to the complaint the single question: Does the latter state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for slander? The court below answered this question in the negative. The»averments of the complaint material to an answer to the legal issue are that the plaintiff was engaged in practicing the profession and business of a lecturer on hygiene, and was daily and honestly acquiring great gains and profit therefrom, when one of the defendants, with intent to injure her in her lecturing, in the presence of divers citizens falsely and maliciously spoke and published of and concerning the said plaintiff, and of and concerning the said plaintiff in the way of her said lectures on hygiene, the false statement that 'Susie' meaning the plaintiff, 'is crazy,' whereby the plaintiff was greatly injured in her lectures on hygiene divers of her neighbors and other citizens were caused to refuse to attend her lectures, as they had previously been accustomed to do, and the plaintiff was caused to lose great gains and profits, which would otherwise have arisen and accrued to her from her lectures on hygiene, to her damage in the sum of $100,000.
For the purpose of the decision of the question presented by this complaint, it will be conceded, without discussion of the proposition, that the averment that the defendant published the false statement that the plaintiff 'Susie is crazy' would not have stated a cause of action for slander, without the allegations that she made this statement of the plaintiff in relation to her profession, and thereby caused her the pecuniary damage alleged in the practice of that profession.
But the publication of false words or statements, concerning one in relation to his profession, trade, or business, which are calculated to cause, and which do cause, him pecuniary loss in the practice of his profession, trade, or business, is actionable, and the averments of the complaint, which have been recited, clearly state a good cause of action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heitzeberg v. Von Hoffmann Press
...v. Gaiser, 28 S.W. 851; Dobbins v. Ry. Co., 138 S.W. 682, 157 Mo.App. 689; 36 C. J., p. 1180, sec. 69, p. 1192, sec. 99; Davis v. Bakewell, 255 F. 960, 167 C. A. 252; Daily v. De Young, 127 F. 491; Minter v. Bradstreet Co., 73 S.W. 668, 174 Mo. 444; Wagner v. Scott, 63 S.W. 1111; Victor Saf......
-
National Refining Co. v. Benzo Gas Motor Fuel Co.
...in relation thereto and to be such as would tend to prejudice him therein." This case was cited with approval by this court in Davis v. Bakewell, 255 F. 960, in which the libel relied on was as to the occupation of plaintiff, and special damages were not plead. We held there was a good caus......
- New York Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson
-
Ira M. Petersime & Son v. Robbins, 1296
...1187; Maytag Co. v. Meadows Mfg. Co. (C.C.A.) 45 F.(2d) 299, certiorari denied 283 U.S. 843, 51 S.Ct. 489, 75 L.Ed. 1452; Davis v. Bakewell (C.C.A.) 255 F. 960; Sternberg Mfg. Co. v. Miller, Du Brul & Peters Mfg. Co. (C.C.A.) 170 F. 298, 18 Ann.Cas. 69; International TextBook Co. v. Leader ......