Kirkpatrick v. Journal Pub. Co.
Decision Date | 07 June 1923 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 311. |
Citation | 210 Ala. 10,97 So. 58 |
Parties | KIRKPATRICK v. JOURNAL PUB. CO. ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O. A. Steele, Judge.
Action for libel by Louella Kirkpatrick against the Journal Publishing Company and others. From a judgment overruling demurrer to defendants' plea, plaintiff takes a nonsuit and appeals. Affirmed.
See also, 207 Ala. 687, 93 So. 622.
Joel B Brown, of Cullman, and W. A. Denson, of Birmingham, for appellant.
E. O McCord & Son and Goodhue & Goodhue, all of Gadsden, for appellees.
This is an action for libel brought by appellant against appellees. In amended counts A and B the alleged libelous publication is set out in hæc verba. The alleged libelous statement is not couched in general terms, but the publication of which plaintiff complains states the facts with particularity. Defendants' third plea was in this language:
"And for further plea in this behalf the defendants each separately and severally say that the publication set out in plaintiff's complaint is substantially true."
Plaintiff's demurrer to this plea was overruled, whereupon she took a nonsuit reserving the ruling for review in this court.
Criticisms of the plea were: (1) That it failed to aver that the alleged facts were published without malice, and (2) that the plea failed to aver that the publication was true, for that the averment was that it was substantially true.
But this court has held that this statute does not prohibit a plea to the same effect in bar. Ferdon v. Dickens, 161 Ala. 181, 49 So. 888; Schuler v. Fisher, 167 Ala. 184, 52 So. 390. In making the statement in the case just referred to, repeated in Advertiser Co. v. Jones, 169 Ala. 196, 53 So. 759, upon which appellant relies as authority for her proposition as to the necessity for a specific denial of malice, we understand that the court was speaking of the pleas of privilege in those cases, for the court there cited pages 456-458 of 25 Cyc., where it is said (page 457). "It has been held...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peinhardt v. West
... ... The ... appellee relies upon Age-Herald Pub. Co. v ... Waterman, 188 Ala. 272, 66 So. 16, Ann.Cas.1916 E, 900; ... Id., 202 Ala. 665, 81 ... stated in the circular and was admissible under the ... defendant's special pleas. Kirkpatrick v. Journal ... Pub. Co., 210 Ala. 10, 97 So. 58 ... E.F ... Scheinart testified as a ... ...
-
Interstate Elec. Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
... ... Ferdon ... v. Dickens, 161 Ala. 181, 49 So. 888; Kirkpatrick v ... Journal Publishing Co., 210 Ala. 10, 97 So. 58. No ... assignment of demurrer appears to ... ...
-
Lovingood v. Discovery Commc'ns, Inc.
...respects, are not actionable. Drill Parts & Service Co. v. Joy Mfg. Co., 619 So. 2d 1280, 1290 (Ala. 1993); Kirkpatrick v. Journal Pub. Co., 97 So. 58, 59 (Ala. 1923). "In actions for libel or slander, the defendant ultimately bears the burden of showing that the defamatory words are true."......
-
McCaig v. Talladega Pub. Co., Inc.
...or slander, this court must affirm the trial court's summary judgment as to the McCaigs' defamation claim. Kirkpatrick v. Journal Publishing Co., 210 Ala. 10, 97 So. 58 (1923); Foley v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., 491 So.2d 934 Further, while the McCaigs allege that the defend......