Irish-American Bank v. Bader
| Decision Date | 07 December 1894 |
| Docket Number | 9002 |
| Citation | 61 N.W. 328,59 Minn. 329 |
| Parties | Irish-American Bank v. Charles O. Bader |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Argued November 21, 1894
Appeal by plaintiff, the Irish-American Bank of Minneapolis, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Robert D Russell, J., made March 19, 1894, denying its motion for a new trial.
Action against defendant, Charles O. Bader, for slander whereby a number of plaintiff's customers were induced to withdraw their deposits and stop doing business with it and whereby it was greatly injured in its credit and reputation, to its damage $ 5,000. When plaintiff's evidence was all given defendant moved the court to direct a verdict in his favor. The motion was granted. Defendant excepted and afterwards moved for a new trial. The court denied the motion, saying:
When the only publication of slanderous matter is one brought about by the plaintiff's own act, it is not sufficient to give a right of action. The maxim volenti non fit injuria applies. Damages cannot be recovered for the repetition of slanderous words spoken by another, whether true or false when such words were repeated by the defendant at the request of the plaintiff or at his instance. Haynes v Leland, 29 Me. 233; Sutton v. Smith, 13 Mo 120; Heller v. Howard, 11 Ill.App. 554; King v. Warring, 5 Esp. 15; Smith v. Ward, 3 Camp. N. P. 323; Warr v. Jolly, 6 Car. & P. 497; Weatherston v. Hawkins, 1 T. R. 110.
Order affirmed.
Rea, Hubachek & Healy, for appellant.
McHale & Abell, for respondent.
OPINION
Action for slander. When plaintiff rested, the court dismissed the action; and the only question necessary to be considered is whether there was any evidence tending to prove the speaking of the words charged, which were as follows: "There is a run on the Irish-American Bank"; "the Irish-American Bank has suspended"; "the Irish-American Bank had but $ 13,000 in money last May"; "and is no good anyway"; "the Irish-American Bank closed its doors at two o'clock to day."
It appears that Scallen, the cashier of the bank, was informed by one Doran that there were rumors afloat that the bank had suspended, and that the report had originated with defendant. Thereupon Scallen suggested to Doran that they had better go and interview defendant, and "see what there was about it," and "shut the thing off," as it might start a run on the bank, and requested Doran to go along with him for that purpose. When they arrived at defendant's place of business, they opened a conversation with him in which they led him up to the subject of the condition of the bank. There is evidence tending to prove that in the course of this conversation defendant spoke some of the words charged. But there is no evidence that the words then spoken were addressed to or heard by any one except Scallen and Doran. It also appears very clearly that whatever defendant said on that occasion was induced by Scallen and Doran themselves. Uttering slanderous words under such circumstances is not actionable. Scallen, the cashier and his friend Doran, who went with him at his request, must both be deemed as representing the bank, as respects that interview. The case is, in effect, one where the words...
To continue reading
Request your trial