Sylvis v. Miller

• Decision Date: 28 January 1896
• Citation: 33 S.W. 921
• Parties: SYLVIS v. MILLER.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

33 S.W. 921

SYLVIS v. MILLER.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 28, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Dickson county; W. L. Grigsby, Judge.

Action by J. H. Sylvis against E. E. Miller. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Jacob Leech, for appellant. Hardin Leech, for appellee.

McALISTER, J.

The plaintiff commenced this action in the circuit court of Dickson county to hold the defendant liable in damages for an alleged libel. The defamatory matter complained of was contained in a letter transmitted to the plaintiff through the post office. The letter was opened by the plaintiff, who immediately exhibited its contents to several of his relatives and friends. This was the only evidence of publication. The circuit judge instructed the jury that the publication of a libel by the aggrieved party would not support the action. This instruction is assigned as error. Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person or persons, and this constitutes the essential element of a libel. Says Mr. Townsend, viz.: "To constitute an actionable publication (that is, such a publication as may confer a remedy by civil action) it is essential that there be a publication to a third person (that is, to some person other than the author or publisher) and he whom or whose affairs the language concerns." Townsh. Sland. & L. § 93. It has been held that sending a letter through the post to the plaintiff, properly addressed to him, and fastened in the usual way, is no publication, and the defendant is not answerable for anything the plaintiff may choose to do with the letter after it has once safely reached his hands. Barrow v. Lewellin, Hob. 62a. If a person receives a letter containing libelous matter, he will not be justified in publishing it. Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 372. In Fonville v. McNease, Dud. (S. C.) 303, it appeared that the plaintiff, after receiving a libelous letter from the defendant, sent for one of his friends, and also for the defendant. He then repeated the contents of the letter in their presence, and asked the defendant if he wrote that letter. The defendant, in the presence of the plaintiff's friend, admitted that he had written it. It was held this was no publication by the defendant to the plaintiff's friend. See, also, State v. Syphrett (S. C.) 2 S. E. 624; Newell, Def. 227, 236. The current of authority on this subject is uniform and unbroken. It is insisted, however, by counsel for appell...