Strauss v. Meyer
| Citation | 48 Ill. 385,1868 WL 5124 |
| Parties | SAMUEL STRAUSSv.MAX A. MEYER et al. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1868 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Chief Justice, presiding.
The facts in this case are fully stated in the opinion. Mr. THOMAS SHIRLEY, for the appellant.
Mr. JOHN WOODBRIDGE, JR., for the appellees.
This was an action on the case, for the recovery of damages claimed by appellant for slandering his character. It appears, from the averments in the declaration, that appellant was a real estate agent in the city of Chicago, and that Alexander and Philip Goldsmith had made an assignment of their property and effects to him, as trustee, for the benefit of creditors; that appellees filed a bill in chancery in the Cook Circuit Court, for the purpose of enjoining appellant from proceeding to execute the trust, and for his removal as assignee of the Goldsmiths.
In the first count it is averred that appellees, wickedly, falsely and maliciously, caused to be written in their bill, of appellant, “that his general character for honesty is bad;” and in a different part of the bill, “that the said Samuel Strauss is an unfit and improper person to discharge the trust imposed upon him by the said assignment; that he has a very small, if any, property, and that he is not responsible for the amount of the said assigned estate.”
In the second count the averment is, that the bill alleged of appellant, “that his general character for honesty is bad.”
The averment in the third, fourth and fifth counts, is the same as in the second.
The sixth is for verbal slander, in saying of appellant, “His general character for honesty is bad;” “he is dishonest;” “he intends to keep the assets assigned to him by the said Goldsmiths, and cheat the creditors.”
The seventh count avers a conspiracy by appellees, by filing the bill sworn to by them, to have appellant removed as assignee. To this delaration appellees filed a demurrer, which was sustained by the court, and appellant abiding by his declaration, the court rendered judgment on the demurrer in bar of the action; and the case is brought to this court on appeal, and a reversal is asked because the demurrer was not overruled.
It has been the long and well recognized rule of the law, that proceedings in the regular course of justice are privileged. In the case of Cutler v. Dickson, 4 Coke, 14, it was held that no allegation contained in articles of the peace exhibited to justices, is actionable, it being a proceeding in the course of justice. Nor will any other proceeding in the regular course of justice, make it libelous. 2 Inst. 228; Lake v. King, 1 Saunders' R. 132, note 1; and in Astley v. Younge, 2 Burr. 807, Lord MANSFIELD announced and applied the same rule. And in the case of Hartsock v. Reddick, 6 Blackf....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bond v. Pecaut
...law. 3 See generally McDavitt v. Boyer, 169 Ill. 475, 48 N.E. 317 (1897); Ash v. Zwietusch, 159 Ill. 455, 42 N.E. 854 (1896); Strauss v. Meyer, 48 Ill. 385 (1968). 4 See generally Richardson v. Dunbar, 95 Ill. App.3d 254, 257, 50 Ill.Dec. 756, 759, 419 N.E.2d 1205, 1208 5 In his motion, Luc......
-
Lauder v. Jones
...matter in controversy, is privileged; and no action can be maintained upon it. Spaids v. Barrett, 57 Ill. 289, 11 Am. Rep. 10; Strauss v. Meyer, 48 Ill. 385. Malice cannot predicated of what is said or written in a proceeding in a court of justice. Words spoken to a magistrate in the course......
-
Defend v. Lascelles
...if relevant or pertinent to the matter in controversy, are privileged, and no action could be maintained upon them. (Strauss v. Meyer (1868), 48 Ill. 385; Maclaskey v. Mecartney (1944), 324 Ill.App. 498, 58 N.E.2d 630; Parker v. Kirkland (1939), 298 Ill.App. 340, 18 N.E.2d 709.) Although th......
-
Withall v. Capitol Federal Sav. of America
...607, 431 N.E.2d 1364, appeal denied, 91 Ill.2d 565; Sarelas v. Alexander (1971), 132 Ill.App.2d 380, 270 N.E.2d 558. In Strauss v. Meyer (1868), 48 Ill. 385, Illinois recognized the rule that anything spoken or written in the regular course of legal proceedings is absolutely privileged as l......