Peterson v. Steenerson

• Decision Date: 23 December 1910
• Docket Number: Nos. 16,781 - (117).,s. 16,781 - (117).
• Citation: 113 Minn. 87
• Parties: SEVER PETERSON v. ELIAS STEENERSON.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

113 Minn. 87

SEVER PETERSON v. ELIAS STEENERSON.¹

Nos. 16,781 - (117).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 23, 1910.

Action in the district court for Polk county to recover $10,000 damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff because of his removal from office as a rural mail carrier through the malicious publication of false charges against plaintiff. The complaint alleged, among other things, that "the defendant above named wrongfully and maliciously set about to effect the removal and discharge of this plaintiff from his appointment as such mail carrier, and in order to effectuate such removal and discharge the defendant above named on the 29th of May, 1909, maliciously, wantonly and falsely made, published and preferred certain false, malicious and fraudulent

charges of and concerning this plaintiff to the postmaster general at Washington, D. C., which charges so made by the defendant against this plaintiff were to said defendant made in writing and were in words and figures as follows" (here follow the charges verbatim).

From an order Watts, J., sustaining defendant's demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.

W. E. Rowe, for appellant.

A. A. Miller, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

Appeal from an order sustaining a general demurrer to plaintiff's complaint. The complaint alleges that during the times stated therein plaintiff was a duly appointed, qualified, and acting rural delivery mail carrier of the United States Post Office Department, stationed at Crookston, this state; that defendant was the duly qualified and acting postmaster at Crookston; that during the early part of the year 1909 defendant set about to secure the removal of plaintiff from his position as rural carrier, and, to effectuate his purpose and design, maliciously, wantonly, and falsely made, published, and preferred certain false, malicious, and fraudulent charges of and concerning plaintiff to the postmaster general, at Washington, D. C. The charges so made are set out in the complaint, and impute to plaintiff misconduct in his office, and conduct detrimental to the best interests of the service, and were, if true, sufficient cause for his removal from office. The complaint then alleges that the charges so made were in all respects false and untrue, and known to defendant to be false when so made by him. It further alleges that, acting upon the charges, the Post Office Department removed plaintiff from office.

Plaintiff claims the right to recover, not for any injury to his name or reputation, but for the loss of his position. And though the action is not, strictly speaking, one for libel, the rights and liabilities of the parties respecting the question here presented are controlled by the rules of law applicable to that subject.

It is contended by defendant, and upon this theory the learned trial court sustained the demurrer to the complaint, that the report to the postmaster general, having been made by defendant in the due discharge of his official duties as postmaster, is absolutely privileged, irrespective of the motive prompting it. This contention presents the principal question discussed by counsel. We assume, in disposing of the case, the correctness of the contention that defendant made the report in the performance of his official duties.

It is a rule of general application in this country that libelous or slanderous matter published in the due course of judicial or legislative proceedings is absolutely privileged, and will not support an action, although made maliciously and with knowledge of its falsity, if pertinent or relevant to the issues in litigation or matter under inquiry. 25 Cyc....