Davis v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 10 January 1902
• Docket Number: 12,739 - (151)
• Citation: Davis v. Hamilton, 85 Minn. 209, 88 N. W. 744 (Minn. 1902)
• Parties: EVERETT W. DAVIS v. GEORGE D. HAMILTON
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

88 N.W. 744

85 Minn. 209

EVERETT W. DAVIS v. GEORGE D. HAMILTON

Nos. 12,739 - (151)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 10, 1902

Action in the district court for Becker county to recover $5,000 for libel. From a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon the pleadings pursuant to an order, Baxter, J., plaintiff appealed. Reversed.

SYLLABUS

Libel -- Pleading.

Whether in an action for libel based upon a defamatory publication containing several independent libels, plaintiff should plead them as separate causes of action, quaere; but, if necessary to so plead them, defendant waives the failure to do so by not seasonably objecting, and by answering to the merits.

Independent Libels -- Reliance on Part -- Damages.

Where such defamatory publication contains several distinct and independent libels, plaintiff may, when the entire article is set out in the complaint, indicate by his allegations an intention to rely exclusively upon a particular portion thereof, and, when such intention is thus shown and indicated, recovery must be confined to the damages resulting from the portion of the libelous article so selected and relied upon.

Libelous Article -- Pleadings.

Defamatory article set out in the complaint considered, and held to be libelous and actionable in three distinct respects, but that the complaint contains no allegations indicating an intention on the part of plaintiff to rely exclusively upon any particular one of such libels.

Complaint.

Complaint considered in other respects, and held to state a cause of action.

Countryman & Morrison, for appellant.

Jeff H Irish, C. M. Johnston and Harris Richardson, for respondent.

OPINION

BROWN, J.

Action for libel. Judgment was ordered for defendant on the pleadings in the court below, and plaintiff appealed. The only question for consideration is whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; in other words, whether the publication complained of is libelous.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff was at the time of the publication of the alleged libelous article a merchant residing and doing business at the village of Detroit, in this state; that at the time of the publication of the libel he was a candidate before the people of the village for the office of president of the village council, for which office he was duly qualified; that defendant was the proprietor, publisher, and editor of a weekly newspaper named "The Detroit Record," published at the village of Detroit, having a general circulation throughout the village and county; that on March 9, 1900, defendant wilfully and maliciously printed and published in his said newspaper the following false, libelous, and defamatory statements of and concerning plaintiff, namely:

"If anything was needed to bear out the argument we have made to show the danger of permitting the saloon power to control village affairs, it was furnished last Wednesday night in the village caucus. Emboldened by past success, they have now met the issue, and boldly assert that they will control this village, defying all laws, all ordinances, and all authority. They assert that the saloon is the only business that has any right to recognition. The highways and the byways have been scoured, whiskey is flowing as freely as water, and in a caucus of 303 men the saloon forces scored a victory by a majority of 39 votes. John K. West, who has been for many years foremost in every effort to build up the village, who has given more employment to labor and paid the laboring man more money than any other man in Detroit, was defeated by E. W. Davis, who is now an applicant in the bankruptcy court for release from the payment of his just debts; he having wrecked his business and expended his means in defending himself from prosecutions brought for his open and persistent violations of the laws of the state."

The complaint further alleges that the defamatory article was intended, and was understood by the readers of the paper, to refer to plaintiff, and that the statement therein to the effect that plaintiff had "wrecked his business and expended his means in defending himself from prosecutions brought for his open and persistent violations of the laws of the state" was intended by defendant, and was understood by all the readers of the paper, to mean that plaintiff had been guilty of crimes and misdemeanors, and that such crimes and unlawful acts had been openly and persistently committed by him. The complaint contains other allegations with reference to the circulation of defendant's newspaper, that plaintiff demanded a retraction, and that it was refused. Defendant answered to the merits, and when the cause came on for trial moved for judgment on the pleadings, on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The motion was granted, and the order granting it is the only error assigned in this court.

The theory of counsel for defendant appears to be that, though the defamatory article may contain separate and distinct libels, the complaint, fairly construed, shows that plaintiff intended to rely upon but one of them; that the other matters contained in the article are in no manner involved, and are not to be considered in determining the sufficiency of the complaint. This contention is based upon the claim that the pleading specially designates and points out the particular portion of the libelous article of which plaintiff complains, and that the portion so complained of relates solely to the charge that plaintiff had wrecked his business and expended his means in defending himself from prosecutions brought against him for his open and persistent violations of the laws of the state.

Whether from the fact that the libelous article contains separate, distinct, and independent libels, plaintiff should have pleaded them in his complaint as separate causes of action, we need not determine. Even though it be conceded that there are several charges of misconduct amounting to independent libels, and that they constitute separate causes of action, and should have been so pleaded, defendant waived the objection by answering to the merits, and not raising it by motion, under the rules of the district...