Rensch v. Roanoke Cold Storage Co.1
Decision Date | 20 June 1895 |
Parties | RENSCH. v. ROANOKE COLD STORAGE CO.1 |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Action for Libel —Special Damages —Injury to Business—Privileged Communications —Hearsay Evidence—Res Gestae.
1. Where the only special damage claimed in an action of libel is for a loss of customers but no names of customers are pleaded, there can be no proof of the loss of particular customers.
2. The defendant notified a hotel company to hold back $312 owing by the latter to plaintiff, that being the amount due by him to the defendant for meat furnished to the hotel on the faith of receiving the money from the latter, "and upon your [hotel's] assurance that your company would see it paid; hence you are notified, as a protection to yourself, not to pay the sum over to any one" but the defendant. Held that this was a privileged communication.
3. An admission by the general manager of a defendant in a libel suit, made two weeks after the alleged libel, that his company had no right to stop plaintiff's money, and that the letter had been written to injure the plaintiff's business, is not competent evidence, being hearsay, and too far removed in time from the writing to be part of the res gestae.
Error to circuit court of city of Roanoke; Dupuy, Judge.
Action by N. Rensch against the Roanoke Cold Storage Company for libel. To a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Wright & Hoge, for plaintiff in error.
Penn & Cocke, for defendant in error.
This is an action for libel under the statute, which is set forth in the Code in section 2897. The following letter constituted the basis of said action:
It appears from the record that the plaintiff in error, N. Rensch, was a butcher in the city of Roanoke, and furnished the Hotel Roanoke, which was owned by the Virginia Company, with meats, and that he procured the meats thus furnished from the Roanoke Cold Storage Company.
The declaration charges that the defendant wrote and published the letter referred to, falsely, maliciously, and with the intention to insult the said plaintiff; that the words used were scandalous, malicious, defamatory, and insulting, and from their common acceptation are construed as insults, and tend to violence and a breach of the peace; and that by the means thereof be has been greatly injured and damaged in his good name, fame, and credit, and brought in public scandal, infamy, and disgrace with and among his neighbors, Insomuch that those who formerly dealt with him refuse to have any further business transactions with him.
If...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott-Burr Stores Corporation v. Edgar
...Great A. & P. Co. v. Majure, 167 So. 637; McClellan v. O'Engle, 77 So. 270; Thompson v. Boston Pub. Co., 189 N.E. 210; Reusch v. Roanoke Cold Storage, 22 S.E. 358; Am. Pub. Co. v. Gamble, 90 S.W. 1005; Stuart New York Herald, 77 N.Y.S. 216; Swindell v. Harper, 41 S.W. 117. A statement by th......
-
Rosenberg v. Mason
...6 S.E. 474; W. T. Grant Co. Owens, 149 Va. 906, 141 S.E. 860. See also Vaughan Lytton, 126 Va. 671, 101 S.E. 865; Rensch Roanoke Cold Storage Co., 91 Va. 534, 22 S.E. 358; Chesapeake Ferry Co. Hudgins, 155 Va. 874, 156 S.E. 429. The trial court seems to have felt constrained to exclude this......
-
Rosenberg v. Mason
...W. T. Grant Co. v. Owens, 149 Va. 906, 141 S. E. 860. See, also, Vaughan v. Lytton, 126 Va. 671, 101 S. E. 865; Reusch v. Roanoke Cold Storage Co., 91 Va. 534, 22 S. E. 358; Chesapeake Ferry Co. v. Hudgins, 155 Va. 874, 156 S. E. 429. The trial court seems to have felt constrained to exclud......
-
Southern Surety Co. v. Nalle & Co.
...17, 25; Taplin v. Marcy, 81 Vt. 428, 71 Atl. 72, 76; Raven Red Ash Coal Co. v. Herron, 114 Va. 103, 75 S. E. 752; Reusch v. Roanoke Cold Storage Co., 91 Va. 534, 22 S. E. 358; Atlas Assur. Co. v. Kettles, 144 Ga. 306, 87 S. E. 1; Aiken v. Tel. Co., 5 S. C. (5 Rich.) 358, 369; Hoffman v. Met......