Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf Pub. Co., Civ. A. No. 52-979.

Decision Date07 May 1953
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 52-979.
Citation112 F. Supp. 228
PartiesGILBERT SHOE CO., Inc. et al. v. RUMPF PUB. CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

George Bernstein, Lowell, Mass., for plaintiff.

Hubert C. Thompson, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

FORD, District Judge.

There are two plaintiffs in this libel action, a corporation and an individual alleged to be president, treasurer, and general manager of the corporation. The action is based on the alleged publication by defendant in its trade magazine of the statement that: "Gilbert Shoe Co., Inc., Haverhill shoe manufacturer, has filed petition for receivership, it is reported." Defendant moves that the action of the individual plaintiff be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The allegedly libelous statement involved here refers solely to the plaintiff corporation and not to the individual plaintiff. It is essential in an action for libel that the publication of the libel should be of or concerning the plaintiff. Hanson v. Globe Newspaper Co., 159 Mass. 293, 294, 34 N.E. 462, 20 L.R.A. 856. One who is not himself libeled cannot recover even though he has been injured by the libel published concerning another. Security Sales Agency v. A. S. Abell Co., D.C., 205 F. 941. In particular, an officer or stockholder of a corporation who is not personally libeled has no right to recover for a libel published of the corporation. McBride v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 5 Cir., 196 F.2d 187, 189; Finnish Temperance Society Sovittaja v. Finnish Socialistic Pub. Co., 238 Mass. 345, 354, 130 N.E. 845.

Motion to dismiss is allowed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Schiavone Const. Co. v. Time, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • October 1, 1985
    ...R.G. Dun & Co. v. Shipp, 127 Tex. 80, 91 S.W.2d 330 (1936), and that the same is true of an officer, see, e.g., Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf, 112 F.Supp. 228, 229 (D.Mass.1953); cf., McMillen v. Arthritis Foundation, 432 F.Supp. 430, 432 (S.D.N. Y.1977) (Chairman of the Board and principal sha......
  • Albright v. Morton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • May 28, 2004
    ...himself libeled cannot recover even though he has been injured by the libel published concerning another." Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf Pub. Co., 112 F.Supp. 228, 229 (D.Mass.1953); see also Eyal v. Helen Broad. Corp., 411 Mass. 426, 433, 583 N.E.2d 228 D. Derivative Claims 1. Commercial Use M......
  • Fillmore v. Maricopa Water Processing Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • September 19, 2005
    ...Counseling & Testing Ctrs. v. Group W Television, Inc., 903 F.2d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir.1990) (stockholders); Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf Pub. Co., 112 F.Supp. 228, 229 (D.Mass.1953) (stockholders or ¶ 26 Given the availability of the "group defamation" theory to satisfy the requirement that the......
  • Fillmore v. Maricopa Water Proc. Systems
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • July 5, 2005
    ...AIDS Counseling & Testing Ctrs. v. Group W Television, 903 F.2d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir.1990) (stockholders); Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf Pub. Co., 112 F.Supp. 228, 229 (D.Mass.1953) (stockholders or ¶ 26 Given the availability of the "group defamation" theory to satisfy the requirement that the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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