Platto v. Geilfuss

• Decision Date: 06 November 1879
• Citation: 2 N.W. 1135,47 Wis. 491
• Parties: PLATTO v. GEILFUSS
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

2 N.W. 1135

47 Wis. 491

PLATTO v. GEILFUSS

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

November 6, 1879

APPEAL from the County Court of Milwaukee County.

Action for libel. The alleged libelous words, and the circumstances under which they were written, will appear from the opinion. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the complaint as not stating a cause of action; and plaintiff appealed from the order.

Order affirmed.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of J. V V. Platto.

For the respondent, there was a brief by Jenkins, Elliott & Winkler and oral argument by D. S. Wegg.

OPINION

ORSAMUS COLE, J.

By way of inducement, the complaint states that the plaintiff was an attorney practicing law in Milwaukee, having dealings with the firm of H. Campbell & Co., law publishers in New York city; and that he had purchased of that firm books and publications to the amount of $ 11. It is stated that it had been agreed between the firm and the plaintiff that the firm should draw on him for that amount, through one of the banks in Milwaukee; and that the firm did draw sending the draft to the Bank of Commerce in Milwaukee for presentation to and acceptance and payment by the plaintiff. It is then alleged that the bank received this draft, but did not notify the plaintiff of its receipt, nor present the same to him, and without his knowledge returned it as dishonored to the drawers. The defendant, the cashier of the bank, in returning the draft, wrote these sentences, which are complained of as libelous: "We return unpaid draft of J. V. V. Platto for $ 11. He pays no attention to notices."

Now the question arising on the demurrer is as to the character of this communication; in other words, can it be said to be defamatory or scandalous? On the part of the plaintiff it is claimed that it is. He insists that the language used necessarily imputes to the plaintiff unworthy motives and dishonest conduct, impeaching his business integrity, and tending to bring him into public hatred, contempt and ridicule. If such is the character and tendency of the communication, there can be no doubt but that it is libelous within the decisions of this court. See Cramer v Noonan, 4 Wis. 231; Brown v. Remington, 7 Wis. 462; Lansing v. Carpenter, 9 Wis. 540; Wilson v. Noonan, 23 Wis. 105; Cary v. Allen, 39 Wis. 481; Kimball v. Fernandez, 41 Wis. 329; Cottrill v. Cramer, 43 Wis. 242. But we do not think the communication is of that character, or can possibly have any such mischievous consequences as are ascribed to it. In substance, the defendant writes: "We return unpaid the draft which you drew upon the plaintiff. He pays no attention to notices which we have sent to him about it." Now what disparaging or damaging imputation is conveyed in this language? None that we can perceive. The words do not impute a want of integrity or honesty on the part of the...