Newell v. How
| Decision Date | 24 November 1883 |
| Citation | 17 N.W. 383,31 Minn. 235 |
| Parties | Thomas R. Newell v. David L. How |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action for libel, brought in the district court for Scott county the complaint containing thirteen counts, each charging a distinct libel. The defendant demurred to each count, as failing to state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained by Macdonald, J., as to the 2d, 4th and 13th causes of action, and overruled as to the others, and the plaintiff appealed.
Brown & Hawkins and H. J. Peck, for appellant.
C. K Davis and E. Southworth, for respondent.
In an action for libel, when the language published is not actionable per se, but requires explanation by some extrinsic matter to make it actionable, the complaint must allege such extrinsic matter which, coupled with the language published, affects its construction and shows that it conveys the actionable meaning which plaintiff claims for it. Townshend on Slander & Libel, § 308. The publications in this case, which constitute the alleged libels, were regarding the plaintiff in the special capacity of a merchant, and in reference to his financial standing and credit as such. In those trades or professions in which ordinarily, credit is essential to their successful prosecution, language is actionable per se which imputes to one in such trade or profession a want of credit or responsibility, or insolvency, past, present, or future. Such language necessarily, or naturally and presumptively causes pecuniary loss to the person of whom it was published. Id. § 191.
The allegations of plaintiff's second cause of action are that the defendant wrote and transmitted to a firm to whom plaintiff was indebted the following letter, of and concerning the plaintiff, to wit: There is nothing in this necessarily or naturally imputing to plaintiff insolvency or financial embarrassment. It is a mere letter of inquiry for certain facts. The fact that it was made in confidence, and that a promise was made that the reply would be confidential, does not, on its face, imply that plaintiff's credit or standing was not good. This confidence might have been exacted and promised for reasons entirely disconnected from plaintiff's financial ability. Hence, standing alone and unaccompanied by allegations of any extrinsic facts or circumstances affecting its construction, this letter contains nothing that is actionable. The allegations that the contents of this letter were false, and that defendant knew it, and wrote it with malicious intent to injure plaintiff, do not aid the pleading in this regard. These are not allegations of any extrinsic facts or circumstances affecting the construction of the words, or showing that they conveyed a defamatory meaning.
2. The fourth cause of action is that the defendant wrote and transmitted to this same firm, with whom plaintiff, a merchant, was then dealing, and to whom he was then indebted another letter, of and...
To continue reading
Request your trial