Mosnat v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 17 May 1898
• Citation: 75 N.W. 356,105 Iowa 500
• Parties: J. J. MOSNAT, Appellant, v. F. E. SNYDER
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

75 N.W. 356

105 Iowa 500

J. J. MOSNAT, Appellant, v. F. E. SNYDER

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 17, 1898

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

AN action for libel. The basis of the action is a letter written from Belle Plaine, Iowa to Charles Kipp, of Pennsylvania. It appears from the petition that plaintiff is an attorney at law of some twenty years' standing and that the letter was falsely and maliciously published of and concerning him. The objectionable part of the letter is as follows:

Belle Plaine, Ia., March 26, 1894.

"Charles Kipp-Dear Sir: Your favor of the 24th at hand. Thanks for the same.

"We are looking into the doing of this tribe of attorneys. It looks very much as though they put their heads together, and each of them get as much out of the estate as possible. An outside attorney told me a few days ago that Mosnat had put a lien on the John Zeller estate for $ 1,250 on account of the heirs you represent, and $ 500 extra to fight the church making $ 1,750 for one and the same thing. Outrage

"Besides this, that attorney says that, under the law of Iowa a foreign corporation (such as the Ev. Church) could not inherit anything. If this is so, you heirs ought to have gotten that 1/4 of the estate that the church got, in addition to what you did get. How is this? Do you think Mosnat got for you all he could, as he agrees in his contract, if that is correct. That lawyer further says that there was no court fight over the division at all; that the church lawyer, Mosnat, and Mrs. Zeller's lawyer made a division, and the court signed it. Now think of it. For this Mosnat wants $ 1,750; the church attorney, I think, $ 400.00 and Mrs. Zeller's attorney, $ 900.00,--$ 3,050.00. Then the church attorney sells the church interest to Mosnat for $ 2,500, which I think is certainly worth $ 3,500 in my estimation, giving him another profit of about $ 1,000. Whether this was part of the agreement or not, I do not know. I understand, Mosnat bought out three of the old country heirs for about one-fifth what they have in it, and so it goes. I wonder whether there was not some misrepresentation to those Germany heirs? Could you not write them, and find out, and let me know? It seems a shame to have things go in this way. John Zeller and I were always good friends, and I dislike to see so much of his property go to outside parties. Please let me know by return mail whether young John Zeller and Mrs. Mary Rabe, his sister, gave you or Mosnat power of attorney. They don't seem to know. John thinks he did, but Mary says she did not. Whatever is done must be done now (April term of court); hence I urge you to answer immediately.

"If an attorney will undertake to reduce these exorbitant charges made by Mosnat, will you be willing to let him try it on per cent., the same as Mosnat made an agreement with you, or nothing, if he gets no reduction?

"I am going to try to buy out a few of the heirs, so I have a personal interest, and then I can help do something.

"As it now stands, the Mrs. John Zeller's heirs got all they could expect, hence there is no trouble on our side; but our share in that extra $ 500 Mosnat charges, the balance is all on your side of the question to explain about the per cent. spoken of on page 5. I mean like this: If he reduces it to $ 100, then he would get $ 25, and your heirs would make $ 75, with no danger of losing anything. Mosnat, so I am told, bought out two of the Germany heirs for $ 50 each.

"Excuse poor writing, as I am writing on a sick bed. Hoping to have you answer my questions by return mail, I am,

"Most respectfully yours,

"F. E. Snyder."

The petition seeks a recovery on the theory that the letter is libelous in itself, there being no claim of special damages or attempt to render the language actionable by innuendo. The answer is in six divisions, the first being a general denial, and the others admitting the writing of the letter, pleading the truth of the statements therein, matters in mitigation, and to show that the communication was privileged. It is made to appear in the answer that Kipp, to whom the letter was written, represented certain heirs of John M. Zeller, deceased, late of Benton county, Iowa and that defendant was acting as administrator of the estate of Anna M. Zeller, deceased, late of said county, who survived said John M. Zeller as his widow; that both Kipp and defendant, in their representative capacities, were interested in the settlement of the estate of said John M. Zeller; that Kipp employed defendant as attorney to look after the interest of the heirs of said estate whom he represented; that he wrote the letter in suit in answer to a letter from said Kipp, making inquiries as to the settlement of said estate, in which he and said Kipp were mutually interested; and that he had reason to, and did, believe the statements in said letter to be true; and that the letter was written in good faith, without malice, and for the purpose of advising said Kipp as to the general condition of the estate. The cause proceeded to trial, to a jury; and, at the close of the evidence, the court, on motion of defendant, directed a verdict for him, and, from a judgment thereon, the plaintiff appealed.

Reversed.

Tom H. Milner and J. J. Mosnat for appellant.

Gilchrist & Whipple, C. Nichols and C. W. E. Snyder for appellee.

OPINION

GRANGER, J.

I.

We are first to...