Rice v. Albee
| Decision Date | 21 June 1895 |
| Citation | 41 N.E. 122,164 Mass. 88 |
| Parties | RICE v. ALBEE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
M.F Dickinson, Jr., for appellant.
Frank P. Goulding and Frank L. Dean, for appellee.
The only acts alleged against the defendant in the third count are that he took Wilson aside, and, by speaking words to him affecting the plaintiff in his character and credit as a merchant, and by disparaging the business and property of the plaintiff, persuaded and induced Wilson not to enter into the contract of partnership and the contract of sale, the terms of which had been orally agreed upon, and which were to be reduced to writing, and the writing signed. It is alleged that the defendant did this unlawfully, willfully maliciously, and unjustifiably. The words spoken are not set out, either according to their tenor or their substance, and it is not alleged in what way they affected the plaintiff in his character or credit, or in what way, by the words spoken the defendant disparaged the plaintiff's business and property. It is not alleged that the words spoken were false. It is alleged that by the words spoken Wilson was persuaded and induced not to enter into the contracts, but it is not alleged that he was deterred from entering into the contracts by any acts or threats or in any manner except by persuasion. No interference is alleged with an existing business or with existing contracts. We do not deem it necessary to consider the cases which relate to a malicious interference with an existing business, or with existing contracts, or those which relate to the enticing away of servants actually employed or under contracts of employment, or the enticing away of a wife or husband. This is a case of words privately spoken in order to persuade the person to whom they were spoken to do what he had a legal right to do, namely, to refuse to enter into certain contracts. We think that the law of slander should apply to this case. The case, we think, in principle, is like the common case of words spoken of a servant or other person on an occasion not privileged for the purpose and with the effect of preventing him from obtaining employment which otherwise he might have obtained. In slander, the truth of the words spoken is a complete defense, whether the words on their face appear to be actionable or are made actionable by reason of special damages, and whether the words affect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Kansas City Star Co., 51705
...Dist. Co. v. Seagram Distillers Corp., 288 Ill.App. 79, 5 N.E.2d 610, Thomson v. Kansas City Star Co., Mo., 387 S.W.2d 493, Rice v. Albee, 164 Mass. 88, 41 N.E. 122, cited by respondents, because they did not deal with words which were libelous per se or imputed crime to the plaintiff. It i......
-
Vegelahn v. Guntner
...is privileged; and then the question of actual malice may be important. This, I think, is the effect of the decision in Rice v. Albee, 164 Mass. 88, 41 N.E. 122. When man orally advises another not to enter into a third person's employment, it would, I think, be a dangerous principle to lea......
-
Owen v. Williams
...Mass. 487 , 494-495. Martineau v. Foley, 225 Mass. 107 , S. C. 231 Mass. 220 . Godin v. Niebuhr, 236 Mass. 350 , 351. The case of Rice v. Albee, 164 Mass. 88 , cited by defendant, was doubted in Moran v. Dunphy, 177 Mass. 485 , 486, and was there said to have gone only to a point of pleadin......
-
Lancaster v. Hamburger
...Thornton, 63 N. C., 211; Chambers v. Baldwin, 91 Ky. 121; Bourlier v. McCauley, 91 Ky. 135; Ency. Law and Proced., 645, 650, 663; Rice v. Albee, 164 Mass. 88; 172 Mass. Cooley on Torts, 690; Hunt v. Simonds, 19 Mo. 583; Anderson v. Public Schools, 122 Mo. 67; Randall v. Hazleton, 12 All., 4......