Watwood v. Credit Bureau Inc., 859.

• Citation: 68 A.2d 905
• Decision Date: 28 October 1949
• Docket Number: No. 859.,859.
• Parties: WATWOOD v. CREDIT BUREAU, Inc., et al.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Columbia District

68 A.2d 905

WATWOOD

v.CREDIT BUREAU, Inc., et al.

No. 859.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued Oct. 5, 1949.

Decided Oct. 28, 1949.

Susie V. Watwood sued the Credit Bureau, Inc., and another for injunctive relief against and damages for libel.

From an order of the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division, granting defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, plaintiff appealed.

The Municipal Court of Appeals, Hood, A. J., affirmed the order, holding that the complaint was insufficient.

Maurice A. Guervitz, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Bernard I. Nordlinger, Washington, D. C., with whom Milton W. King, Wallace Luchs, Jr. and Ellis B. Miller, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.

Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges.

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Appellant filed an action against Credit Bureau Reports, Inc., and an individual described as general manager and secretary, alleging that defendants had published a report concerning appellant the contents of which were ‘vile, malicious, inaccurate, and untrue,’ and seeking injunctive relief and ‘any and all other relief’ to which she was entitled. Defendants moved to dismiss and appellant obtained leave to amend. An amended complaint was filed, similar in form to the original complaint except that in addition to the injunctive relief damages in the sum of $3,000 were asked. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and appellant took a voluntary nonsuit.

The following month appellant filed a new action, naming as defendants Credit Bureau, Inc., and Credit Bureau Reports, Inc. The complaint alleged that the defendants ‘furnished certain written reports and information’ to a named individual ‘in which the defendants made false and libelous statements as to the financial situation of the plaintiff, as to her marital status and other libelous information which was untrue and false.’ Injunctive relief was asked (1) restraining defendants from issuing any further false and untrue statements against plaintiff, (2) compelling defendants to destroy all records in their possession concerning plaintiff, and (3) restraining defendants from giving any information of any nature concerning plaintiff. No special damages were alleged though it was asserted that appellant had suffered ‘irreparable damage’ and would continue to suffer such damage unless defendants were restrained from issuing ‘said information.’ In addition to the injunctive relief the complaint asked judgment for $3,000.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and this appeal is from an order granting that motion.

Dismissal of the complaint was plainly correct. The weight of authority is that a complaint for libel should set forth the alleged defamatory matter verbatim although some authorities hold that it is sufficient to state the substance and effect of the defamatory words. 53 C.J.S., Libel and Slander, § 164; 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander...