Theiss v. Scherer
Decision Date | 20 June 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 17599.,17599. |
Parties | Arthur THEISS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon H. SCHERER, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Bernard C. Fox, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
James L. O'Connell, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee; Lindhorst & Dreidame, Ambrose H. Lindhorst, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief.
Before McCREE and COMBS, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
The appellant contends that the district judge erred in holding that the complaint in an action for libel did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The claim of libel grows out of a letter which appellee, an attorney, wrote to appellant's attorney in regard to the administration of an estate. The letter was filed with the complaint and reads:
GORDON H. SCHERER Attorney at Law 1717 Carew Tower Cincinnati, Ohio July 1, 1964 Mr. George C. Allen Barbour, Kimpel & Allen 709 Gwynne Building Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Dear George:
Sincerely yours /s/ GORDON SCHERER Gordon H. Scherer GHS:ems cc: Mr. Frederick C. Theiss Mrs. A. T. Fleischbein Mrs. S. J. Johnson Mrs. Byron Meyer
A copy of the letter was sent to four persons who had an interest in the estate referred to in the letter.
It is alleged in the complaint that the appellant is a responsible businessman, and that the letter accused him of being a wastrel, with dissipating his assets, and with committing the crime of blackmail. It is also alleged that the statements were false, that they were written maliciously, that they were published, that they have damaged appellant's reputation, and caused him great mental anguish.
Presented on this appeal are these questions:
1. Is the statement in the letter that appellant was indulging in a "little piece of blackmail" libelous per se?
2. Is the statement that appellant had dissipated his assets libelous per se?
3. May the appellee rely on the defense that he was merely repeating a statement made by appellant's mother?
4. Was the letter a privileged communication?
5. Is the question whether the letter was a privileged communication one for the court to decide?
1) We agree with appellee that the reference in the letter to a "little piece of blackmail" does not accuse appellant of a crime and is not libelous in the context in which it was used. Brown v. Myers, 40 Ohio St. 99 (1883). The Brown case is old but we think it is still good law. It holds that an accusation is not actionable in Ohio where a specific felony is not mentioned and the recipients of the publication have knowledge of the transaction and know it is not felonious.
2) It will be assumed arguendo that under Ohio law the statement that appellant had dissipated his assets is libelous per se. It was held in Cleveland Leader Printing Co. v. Nethersole, 84 Ohio St. 118, 95 N.E. 735 (1911), that a publication respecting a person is libelous per se if it affects him injuriously in his trade or profession. Since appellant is vice president of an insurance company and a prominent businessman, as alleged in the complaint, it must be presumed that the accusations in regard to his incompetency to handle his assets would affect him injuriously in his profession. In view of our decision on a subsequent question, however, we do not consider it necessary to extend the discussion on this aspect of the case.
3) We agree with appellant that one may not avoid the consequences of making a libelous statement merely by saying that he is repeating the words of another, even when that person is identified. Fowler v. Chichester, 26 Ohio St. 9 (1874); Haines v. Welling, 7 Ohio 250 (1835). We note once more that these cases are old, but again we are of the opinion they clearly state the prevailing Ohio rule. Moreover, the general rule is that one who repeats a libelous remark is liable for his republication. 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander § 95.
4) We hold, however, that the letter in question falls under the rule of absolute privilege. It is apparent from the letter itself, and was assumed in oral argument, that it was written in relation to a will which had been offered for probate and also was in reference to impending litigation to contest the will. It was addressed to an attorney who represented a party with a financial interest in these proceedings. Copies of the letter were sent only to those who had a direct financial interest in the settlement of the estate.
The probate of a will and the settlement of an estate by a court is a judicial proceeding. Simon v. Potts, 33 Misc.2d 183, 225 N.Y.S.2d 690 (Sup.Ct. 1962); Matthis v. Kennedy, 243 Minn. 219, 67 N.W.2d 413 (1954); Parker v. Kirkland, 298 Ill.App. 340, 18 N.E.2d 709 (1939). It is beyond argument that statements made in pleadings filed in a judicial proceeding come within the rule of absolute privilege. Rudin v. Fauver, 15 Ohio Cir.Ct.R.,N.S., 30 (1909), affirmed 83 Ohio St. 468, 94 N.E. 1114; 34 O.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander § 75; 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander § 146.
Whether the same rule applies to communications between attorneys is a closer question, but we think the better rule is that such communications are absolutely privileged if they have relevance to, and are made during the course of, a judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kanengiser v. Kanengiser
... ... 805, 807, 426 N.E.2d 1130, 1132 (1981). Accord Larmour v. Campanale, 96 Cal.App.3d 566, 158 Cal.Rptr. 143 (1979). See also Theiss v. Scherer, 396 F.2d 646 (6 Cir.1968) (attorney's letter questioning motives of plaintiff in contesting will absolutely privileged; copies of letter ... ...
-
Gilchrist v. OKL. EMPLOYMENT SEC. COM'N
...the privilege protects an attorney from litigation it will not make him immune from professional discipline); Theiss v. Scherer, 17 Ohio Misc. 172, 396 F.2d 646, 649 (6th Cir.1968); Ruberton v. Gabage, 280 N.J.Super. 125, 654 A.2d 1002, 1007 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1995) (the absolute privile......
-
Hyde Construction Co., Inc. v. Koehring Company
...failed to file a petition for removal. 35 Accord: Brown v. Collins, 131 U.S.App. D.C. 68, 402 F.2d 209 (1968); Theiss v. Scherer, 396 F.2d 646, 649 (6 Cir. 1968); Petty v. General Accident Fire & Life Assu. Corp., 365 F.2d 419 (3 Cir. 1966); Ginsburg v. Black, 192 F.2d 823 (7 Cir. 1951); Br......
-
Harrison v. Aztec Well Servicing Co.
... ... not in complicity with the plaintiff, had at least been ... ‘manipulated,' as part of a scheme by the ... plaintiff”); Theiss" v. Scherer , 396 F.2d 646, ... 648 (6th Cir. 1968) (noting that the letter at issue, which ... the court found covered by the privilege, \xE2" ... ...