Peterson v. Steenerson

• Decision Date: 23 December 1910
• Citation: 129 N.W. 147,113 Minn. 87
• Parties: PETERSON v. STEENERSON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

113 Minn. 87

129 N.W. 147

PETERSON

v.STEENERSON.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 23, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; William Watts, Judge.

Action by Sever Peterson against Elias Steenerson. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

The general rule that libelous or slanderous statements uttered and published in the course of judicial or legislative proceedings are absolutely privileged does not extend or apply to public officers in general.

Libelous publications, contained in reports of public officers other than in judicial or legislative proceedings, are only qualifiedly privileged.

In such case the official character of the report prima facie protects the officer, and the burden is upon the person claiming to have been libeled to prove the falsity of the report and the malice of the author thereof. 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 to 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. 376; Sheppard v. Bryant, 191 Mass. 591, 78 N. E. 394, 6 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 802. The rule is broad and comprehensive, including within its scope all proceedings of a judicial nature,...