Hollenbeck v. Ristine

Citation75 N.W. 355,105 Iowa 488
PartiesJAMES HOLLENBECK, Appellant, v. J. M. RISTINE
Decision Date17 May 1898
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Appeal from Linn District Court.--HON. G. W. BURNHAM, Judge.

ACTION at law to recover damages for an alleged libel written of and concerning the plaintiff, resulting in his discharge from employment by the Cedar Rapids & Marion City Railway as a conductor upon its lines, and for loss of time and injury to reputation and means of support. Defendant admitted the writing of the alleged libel, and averred that it was both justifiable and privileged. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Henry Rickel, John T. Christie and Jamison & Smith for appellant.

C. D Harrison and Hubbard, Dawley & Wheeler for appellee.

OPINION

DEEMER, C. J.

The alleged libelous publication of which plaintiff complains is the same one recently considered by this court in the case of Hollenbeck v. Hall, 103 Iowa 214, 72 N.W. 518, and need not be set out in extenso. We held in that case that the publication was not libelous per se. The only difference between that case and this is that, in this plaintiff alleged and produced evidence tending to show that the defendant wrote the letter to Hall, who was president and manager of the Cedar Rapids & Marion City Railway, with intent to injure plaintiff, and to induce Hall to discharge him from the service of that company; that he had theretofore been in the employ of the company as a conductor for many years; and that, by the writing of said letter, plaintiff has been injured in his means of support, deprived of his employment, and lost valuable time by reason of his discharge. This, as we understand it, is a plea for special damages; and the question at the threshold of the case is whether or not plaintiff can recover special damages resulting from the publication of a letter which is not libelous per se. It has been broadly stated that "all words are actionable if special damage follows." Moore v. Meagher, 1 Taunt. (Eng.) 39; Barnes v. Trundy, 31 Me. 321; Comyn, Digest, tit "Action for defamation," D, 30. Again, it has been said that "special damage will not help you if the words are not defamatory." Blackburn, J., in Young v Macrae, 7 Law T. (N. S.) 354, 3 Best & S. 264. To the same effect is Sheahan v. Ahearne, 9 Ir. R. C. L. 412. We apprehend that between these two statements is to be found the correct rule. Town-shend, in his work on Libel and Slander (4th ed., section 197), says: "It may be correct to say that, to make the words wrongful, they must in their nature be defamatory; provided, the rule thus expressed be understood as being subordinate to and implied in the more comprehensive rule that, to render actionable that language which is not actionable per se, the language must occasion special damage, in the proper sense of that term;" that is to say, as we understand it, the damage must be the natural and proximate, although not the necessary, consequences of the wrongful act complained of. Townshed further says: "The real question must always be, was the damage complained of the natural and proximate consequences of the publication?" Judge Cooley, in his work on Torts (2d ed., p. 242), says: "Besides the publications mentioned [referring to those libelous per se], any untrue and malicious charge which is published in writing or print is libelous when damage is shown to have resulted at a natural and proximate consequence." This we regard as a correct statement of the rule, and it seems to be sustained by the authorities. Scholl v. Bradstreet Co., 85 Iowa 551, 52 N.W. 500; Morasse v. Brochu, 151 Mass. 567 (25 N.E. 74); Odgers, Slander & Libel, 89, 92, and cases cited. If it be conceded, however, that there cannot be an action for libel unless the words are defamatory, still plaintiff may be entitled to relief under the allegations of his petition, although he may call it an action for libel. If one intentionally cause temporal loss or damage to another without justifiable cause and with malicious purpose to inflict it, that other may recover, in an action of tort, the damages he has sustained as a natural and proximate result of the wrong. Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555; Lucke v. Clothing Cutters' & Trimmers' Assembly, 77 Md. 396 (26 A. 505); Chipley v. Atkinson, 23 Fla. 206 (1 So. 934). The name that plaintiff has given his action is of no consequence, provided he has stated sufficient facts to show a right of recovery. We are firmly of the opinion that the petition stated a cause of action, and that the plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Vojak v. Jensen
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • September 5, 1968
    ...707, 721, 100 N.W. 867, 872; Berger v. Freeman Tribune Publishing Company, 132 Iowa 290, 295, 109 N.W. 784, 786; Hollenbeck v. Ristine, 105 Iowa 488, 491, 75 N.W. 355, 356; McCudden v. Dickinson, 230 Iowa 1141, 1142, 300 N.W. 308, 309; 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander, section 262, page 242; S......
  • Lucas v. Pioneer, Inc.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1977
    ...in the petition disclose the rights are in fact several, not joint. In this connection, we relevantly said in Hollenbeck v. Ristine, 105 Iowa 488, 491, 75 N.W. 355, 356 (1898), "The name that plaintiff has given his action is of no consequence, provided he has stated sufficient facts to sho......
  • Lemke v. Thompson
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1916
    ... ... Merritt v ... Meisenheimer, 84 Wash. 174, 146 P. 370; Lewis v ... Utah Constr. Co. 10 Idaho 214, 77 P. 336; Hollenbeck ... v. Ristine, 105 Iowa 488, 67 Am. St. Rep. 306, 75 N.W ... 355; Kansas P. R. Co. v. Anderson, 23 Kan. 44; ... McMullin v. Reed, 213 Pa ... ...
  • Mauney v. Millar
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1920
    ...40 Minn. 475; 69 Id. 482; 60 S.W. 567; 73 Tex. 568; 48 La.Ann. 1116; 107 Mich. 67; 118 Ga. 865; 66 Conn. 175; 42 S.E. 295; 38 Fla. 240; 105 Iowa 488; 125 Mich. 192; 69 Miss. 168; Pa.St. 52; 139 Id. 334; 127 Mass. 316; 123 N.Y. 420; 100 Ark. 483. See also 152 Mo. 268; 122 Id. 355; 52 Ark. 18......
  • 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