Johnson v. Asbury Park Press, Inc.
Decision Date | 27 April 1936 |
Citation | 184 A. 518 |
Parties | JOHNSON v. ASBURY PARK PRESS, Inc., et al. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Action at law by Leonard Johnson against Asbury Park Press, Inc., and others. On defendants' motion to strike reply.
Motion granted.
Lester C. Leonard, of Newark, for the motion.
Roger M. Yancey, of Newark, and Robert S. Hartgrove, of Jersey City, opposed.
LAWRENCE, Supreme Court Commissioner.
This is a suit resulting from an alleged libelous publication relating to plaintiff. The article complained of appeared in the issue of the Asbury Park Press of March 7, 1934. The defendant in question moves to strike the reply to its answer on the ground that it is frivolous. The answer, in addition to the defenses, pleads the new statute of limitations (P.L. 1934, p. 287, ch. 98 [N.J.St. Annual 1934, § 119—22b]), in bar. It is as follows:
Plaintiff's reply denies the application of this statute, asserting that his cause of action arose prior to its enactment, that it is not retroactive, and since the state of the law, as generally recognized, prior to the approval of the new act, limited suits for libel, as in cases of slander, to two years, the present action was brought within such period and is not consequently controlled by the new act. Counsel for defendant argues that plaintiff had a reasonable time within which to bring his suit, but failed to do so, with the result that the bar of the statute is applicable. He invokes the rule that Terry v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 628, 24 L.Ed. 365. In New Jersey the rule appears to have been applied, with the accent that it is essential that all statutes of limitation which affect existing rights and remedies shall allow a reasonable time after they take effect for the commencement of suits upon such causes of action. Marston v. Seabury, 3 N.J.Law, 435; Smith's Ex'rs v. Tucker, 17 N.J.Law, 82; Vreeland v. Town of Bergen, 34 N.J.Law, 438, at page 441; Warshung v. Hunt, 47 N.J.Law, 256, affirmed 48 N.J.Law, 613, 9 A. 199; and Barnaby v. Bradley & Currier Co., 60 N.J. Law, 158, 37 A. 764.
Ordinarily statutes, unless the contrary intent clearly appears, are not to begiven retrospective operation (Borger v. Board of Free-Holders, 180 A. 495, 13 N.J. Misc. 676, 678), but the rule is not applicable where the right to sue is not affected and only the remedy involving the time within which the action must be brought is the subject of the legislation (Lapsley, Adm'x, v. Public Service Corporation, 75 N.J.Law, 266, 68 A. 1113; Bretthauer, Adm'r, v. Jacobson, 79 N.J.Law, 223 at page 225, 75 A. 560).
It is to be observed that until the new act there was no special legislation limiting the time within which a suit for libel was required to be brought. There was as to words. Rev. 1877, p. 594, as amended, P.L. 1896, p. 119; section 3 of an act for the limitation of actions, 3 Comp.St. 1910, p. 3164, § 3. See, also, section 1, ante, p. 3162, excepting actions for slander from the six-year period. As libel and slander at common law sounded in tort and were in form actions on the case (37 C.J. 16, § 310), it has been generally supposed that the act limiting suits for slander also applies to those for libel, although this is said not to be necessarily so (C.J., supra, § 314). No case was cited on the argument of the present motion, however, in an appellate court here discussing the subject.
It may...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roderick v. Hough
...upon a remedy then alive and effective: State ex rel. Donovan v. Duluth St. Ry. Co., 150 Minn. 364, 185 N.W. 388; Johnson v. Asbury Park Press, 184 A. 518, 14 N.J.Misc. 282; Sleeth v. Murphy (Iowa), Morris 321, 41 Am.Dec. 232; Keen v. Mid-Continental Petroleum Corp., 8 Cir., 63 F.Supp. 120;......
-
Barres v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
...released the book, assuming for the purposes of this motion that the statement was libelous. See Johnson v. Asbury Park Press, Inc., 14 N.J.Misc. 282, 184 A. 518 (Sup.Ct.1936), aff'd 117 N.J.L. 533, 189 A. 381 (E. & A.1973). 2 In that case plaintiff moved to strike the defense that the one-......
-
Gottesman v. Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry
...of their enactment there still remained a reasonable period during which claims could be asserted. See Johnson v. Asbury Park Press, Inc., 14 N.J.Misc. 282, 184 A. 518 (Sup.Ct.1936), affirmed 117 N.J.L. 533, 189 A. 381 (E. & A.1937); Marston v. Seabury, 3 N.J.L. 435 (Reprint 28) (Sup.Ct.180......
-
Department of Mental Health of Com. of Ky. v. Mullins
...the entire previously vested claim could be sued upon free of the effect of the new limitations provision. Johnson v. Asbury Park Press, 14 N.J.Misc. 282, 184 A. 518 (Sup.Ct.1936), affirmed 117 N.J.L. 533, 189 A. 381 (E. & A. 1937), and see Warshung v. Hunt, 47 N.J.L. 256 (Sup.Ct.1885), aff......