Smith v. Coe
| Decision Date | 20 November 1875 |
| Citation | 22 Minn. 276 |
| Parties | Catharine S. Smith v. James N. Coe |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Olmsted county, Mitchell, J., presiding, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
Jones & Gove, for appellant.
Start & Benedict, for respondent.
This is an action for publishing in certain newspapers, as the complaint alleges, "the false, malicious and defamatory words, of and concerning the plaintiff, following, that is to say: 'Said letters and others were stolen from this deponent (defendant meaning) sometime during the past six years, and have been prepared and kept as a means for the extortion of money from, and otherwise injuring, his said partner, W. D. Hurlbut.'"
A libel is a malicious publication, expressed in print writing, or by signs, tending to injure the reputation of another, and expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. 3 Cooley's Blackstone, 123, note; 2 Kent 17 Broom's Commentaries, 745; 1 Starkie on Slander, 169. Notwithstanding it is averred in the complaint in the case at bar that the words above recited were published of and concerning the plaintiff, neither this averment nor the words themselves, nor the averment and words taken together, amount to an allegation that the defendant, by the publication complained of, charged the plaintiff with having stolen the letters, or with having prepared or kept them as a means for the extortion or injury mentioned. The matter published was, then, not libellous, within the definition given, unless there were extrinsic facts going to show that the meaning of the matter published was a charge that the plaintiff had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDermott v. Union Credit Company
...v. Capron, 1 Denio, 250; Kinney v. Nash, 3 N.Y. 177; Gove v. Blethen, 21 Minn. 80. G.S. 1894, § 5257, has not changed the rule. Smith v. Coe, 22 Minn. 276; Fry Bennett, supra; Petsch v. Dispatch P. Co., 40 Minn. 291; Richmond v. Post, 69 Minn. 457. A demurrer does not admit the truth of an ......
-
Petsch v. Dispatch Printing Company
...or persons in some way designated or indicated, so that reference may be made to it by the pleader as applicable to the plaintiff. Smith v. Coe , 22 Minn. 276. Cases may arise in which the words are in themselves so and uncertain that it could not be intended that they were spoken of any pa......
-
Broeck v. Journal Printing Co.
... ... meaning which plaintiff claims for it." ... That ... is, the "actionable quality" not appearing from the ... publication per se, the extrinsic facts must be pleaded which ... show that it has in fact that quality. Smith v. Coe, ... 22 Minn. 276. The defamatory effect which makes for libel is ... established by facts and not the testimonially expressed ... opinions of witnesses as to the "meaning of the" ... libel. So in Gribble v. Pioneer-Press Co. 37 Minn ... 277, 34 N.W. 30, it was held error to permit ... ...
-
Carlson v. Minnesota Tribune Company
...the pleader as applicable to the plaintiff. The actionable quality of the matter published as respects the plaintiff must be shown. Smith v. Coe, 22 Minn. 276; v. Dispatch Printing Co. , 40 Minn. 291, (41 N.W. 1034.) In omitting to allege that the plaintiff was the unnamed woman mentioned i......