Hood v. Palm

• Decision Date: 07 June 1848
• Citation: Hood v. Palm, 8 Pa. 237 (Pa. 1848)
• Parties: HOOD <I>v.</I> PALM et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

8 Pa. 237

HOODv.PALM et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 31, 1848.

June 7, 1848.

IN error from the Common Pleas of Cumberland county.

May 31.

Biddle and Watts, for plaintiff in error.

Reed, contrà.

June 7.GIBSON, C. J.

This cause seems to have been treated as an action of slander, to which it bears some resemblance.The declaration charges a conspiracy to defame the plaintiff, by speaking scandalous words of him, and by libelling him; in support of which, he gave evidence of words, as overt acts, which would not be actionable if spoken without preconcert; and also of a written publication of the same words, which was distinctly libellous.But it is a rule, that where a libeller may be prosecuted by indictment, he may be prosecuted by action, though the words would not have been actionable had they not been written.The reason is, that a libel, diffused far and wide as it may be by the power of the press, has a violent tendency to destroy the reputation of him who has the misfortune to be the subject of it; and as damage is implied from it as a legal and natural consequence of an aggravated wrong it need not be specially laid.The implication is the same as the presumption of damage that is raised by the speaking of words which are actionable in themselves.Damage is the gist of an action on the case for a conspiracy, as it is of every action on the case — it is the gist of an action even for actionable words — but it follows not that it must be particular and substantial.If it were so, it would have to be specially laid as well as proved; but the declaration in Skinner v. Gunton, 1 Saund. 228, contains an allegation of no more than general damage.The action for conspiracy has been extremely rare; and that case furnishes, perhaps, the only reliable precedent for it to be found in the books.In Archbold's Nisi Prius, 450, it is said, that a conspiracy, when indictable, is actionable like a libel, and consequently without proof of special damage.To put another in jeopardy or terror, is itself a damage to him; and it is on this ground that it is actionable, to charge maliciously an innocent person with a crime.It is said, that the plaintiff in this case was not in jeopardy.Of prosecution by indictment, he certainly was not; but of being ruined in his reputation and business, he certainly was.The libel which jeoparded him, would give him an action against a single publisher of it; and why not against a number who published it in...