Victor Safe & Lock Co. v. Deright

• Decision Date: 01 August 1906
• Docket Number: 2,061.
• Citation: 147 F. 211
• Parties: VICTOR SAFE & LOCK CO. v. DERIGHT.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

147 F. 211

VICTOR SAFE & LOCK CO. v. DERIGHT.

No. 2,061.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

August 1, 1906

(Syllabus by Court.)

By the law of libel defamatory language is actionable without special damage when it contains an imputation upon one as an individual, or in respect of his office, profession, or trade, but is not actionable when it is merely in disparagement of one's property, or of the quality of the articles which he manufactures or sells, unless it occasions special damage.

The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture and sale of what are commonly designated as 'Victor Safes.' The defendant who is engaged in selling other safes, wrote to a third person a letter containing the following language: 'We have heard that you had placed order for a Victor Screw Door. We are somewhat surprised at this and feel that you have been misled. The Victor plate safe is very cheaply constructed and can be easily burglarized. The Victor, so-called 'manganese steel safe' is weaker still, and can be opened inside of a vault or anywhere else in a few moments time. ' Held, that this language must be regarded as merely in disparagement of the plaintiff's safes and therefore as not actionable in the absence of special damage and that, there being no allegation of such damage in the petition, it is demurrable.

Charles W. Baker (Walter S. Stillman, and J. E. Price, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Isaac E. Congdon (John W. Parish, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN and VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judges, and PHILIPS, District judge.

VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judge.

This was an action for libel. The plaintiff, an Ohio corporation is engaged in the manufacture and sale of safes of various styles made of steel and iron plates and commonly designated as 'Victor Safes.' Among these is one known as a 'plate safe' and another known as a 'manganese steel safe.' The defendant, a citizen of Nebraska, is engaged in the sale of safes other than those made by the plaintiff. the libel charged rests upon the following letter written by the defendant to one Holland:

'Dear Sir: We have heard that you had placed order for a Victor Screw Door. We are somewhat surprised at this and feel that you have been misled. The Victor plate safe is very cheaply constructed and can be easily burglarized. The Victor, so-called, manganese steel safe is weaker still, and can be opened inside of a vault or anywhere else in a few moments time. The large second-hand fire and burglar proof safe on which we made you a low price will stand much more explosive and is a much more difficult safe to open than any Victor you could buy. We are ready to demonstrate this at any time. We trust you have not concluded the contract, and will still consider a proposition on our safe.'

Because the petition contained no allegation of special damage a demurrer thereto was sustained, and, the plaintiff declining to amend, judgment was given for the defendant.

The sole question presented for our consideration is: Is the language of the letter libelous per se; that is actionable without special damage? As by the law of libel defamatory language is actionable without special damage when it contains an imputation upon one as an individual, or in respect of his office, profession or trade, but is not actionable when it is merely in disparagement of one's property or of the quality of the articles which he manufactures or sells, unless it occasions special damage, it is essential to consider whether the language of the letter contains an imputation upon the plaintiff or is merely in disparagement of the quality of its safes. Townsend on Slander and Libel (4th Ed.) Secs. 146-151, 205,...