Hollenbeck v. Hall

• Decision Date: 15 October 1897
• Citation: 72 N.W. 518,103 Iowa 214
• Parties: HOLLENBECK v. HALL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

103 Iowa 214

72 N.W. 518

HOLLENBECK

v.HALL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 15, 1897.

Appeal from superior court, Cedar Rapids county; T. M. Giberson, Judge.

The plaintiff alleged in his petition that “on or about the 1st day of June, 1893, the defendant, P. E. Hall, for the purpose of injuring the good name and reputation of the plaintiff herein, and to expose to the public hatred, contempt, and ridicule, and to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence and social intercourse, did publish of and concerning the plaintiff the following false, libelous, and defamatory matter, to wit: ‘Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Dec. 7, 1892. P. E. Hall, Pres. C. R. & M. C. Ry. Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa--Dear Sir: For some years past, one of your old and trusty conductors, Mr. James Hollenbeck, has owed us a bill for professional services rendered his family in the way of consultations with his family physician at his home, in Marion. His attention has been repeatedly called to the subject, but to no purpose. We finally sued him, to which he responds by employing an attorney, and contesting the claim. Having no other defense, he cowardly slinks behind that of statutory limitation. Such a course is not exactly in accordance with our idea of strict integrity. So far as we are concerned, we would prefer not to be connected in an official capacity with a corporation giving employment to men of this character; especially when permitted to occupy positions of trust. Yours, courteously, H. & J. M. Ristine.’ ” Then follows a denial in detail of the statements contained in the letter, the allegations that it was published by mailing copies to persons named, and that plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $5,000, for which amount judgment is prayed. No special damages are alleged. To this petition the defendant demurred in these words: “(1) No sufficient publication of the alleged libel is shown to render the defendant liable. (2) The alleged letter or publication set out in the petition is not libelous or actionable, even if published.” It is not libelous to charge plaintiff with having availed himself of the statute of limitations, and no language is contained in the alleged letter or publication from which injury or damage to the plaintiff can be inferred. The demurrer was sustained, and, the plaintiff electing to stand on the ruling, judgment was entered against him for costs, and he appeals. Affirmed.J. H. Crosby, H. Rickel, and John T. Christie, for appellant.

Chas. A. Clark, for appellee.

LADD, J.

Conceding the letter to have been published, was it libelous? Our statute defines “libel” to be “the malicious defamation of a person made public by any printing, writing, sign, picture, representation or effigy, tending to provoke him to wrath or expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefits of public confidence and social intercourse.” Code 1873, § 4097. “Defamation” is defined by Webster as “the taking from another's reputation.” Odgers, in his work on Libel and Slander, says: “Words which produce any perceptible injury to the reputation of another are called defamatory.” It is “a false publication calculated to bring one in disrepute.” Cooley, Torts, 193. The derivation of the word leaves no doubt as to its meaning. Was there anything in the letter injurious to the good name of the plaintiff, or tending to bring him into disrepute? It is not dishonorable to be indebted to another, nor is it libelous to publish of another that he owes...