Williams v. Ed Fuller
Citation | 94 N.W. 118,68 Neb. 354 |
Decision Date | 18 March 1903 |
Docket Number | 12,642 |
Parties | AMANDA M. WILLIAMS ET AL. v. ED FULLER. [*] |
Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
ERROR to the district court for Franklin county: ED L. ADAMS DISTRICT JUDGE. Reversed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
A. H Byrum and Andrew G. Wolfenbarger, for plaintiffs in error.
G. M Caster, contra.
This is an action for libel. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment accordingly. The defendants bring error.
A part of the defendants demurred to the petition generally, and on the ground of a defect of parties. The latter appears to have been abandoned in the argument. The court overruled the demurrer, and the ruling in that behalf is now assigned as error. In support of that assignment, the defendants contend that the article is not actionable per se. This contention is wholly without merit. Any false and malicious writing published of another is libelous per se, when its tendency is to render him contemptible or ridiculous in public estimation, or expose him to public hatred or contempt, or hinder virtuous men from associating with him. Cooley, Torts, *206; World Publishing Co. v. Mullen, 43 Neb. 126, 47 Am. St. Rep. 737, 61 N.W. 108. That the language as set out in the petition, and alleged to have been published of and concerning the plaintiff, has that tendency, is too clear to admit of argument.
It is next urged that there is no allegation in the petition sufficiently alleging that the article complained of was published of and concerning the plaintiff. This complaint is also unfounded. The petition contains the positive averment, and leaves no room for doubt, that the article in question was published of and concerning the plaintiff. That being true, further allegations by way of inducement or colloquium would be superfluous and redundant.
It is next argued that the petition fails to point out the meanings of the words used in the libelous article. If the words used were of doubtful significance, or ambiguous, or were not sufficiently explained by the context, there would be much force in the argument on this point, but such is not the case. With the possible exception of one or two words, no one acquainted with our language can be left in doubt as to the meaning of the words employed. If those exceptions should be entirely disregarded, the article would still be libelous, and the petition good as against a general demurrer. The demurrer was properly overruled.
Upon the overruling of the demurrer the defendants answered, two of them joining in one answer, the other filing a separate answer. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike out portions of the answers, and one assignment of error is that the court erred in sustaining that motion. We are unable to find any order of the court sustaining that motion, and for that reason it cannot be considered. The defendants offered to prove, on behalf of the proprietors of the paper, that the article was published without their knowledge. The theory upon which this evidence appears to have been offered is that their lack of knowledge would go in mitigation of damages. The proprietor of a newspaper is civilly liable for a libelous article published therein, even though it be published without his knowledge or consent. Storey v Wallace, 60 Ill. 51; Detroit Daily Post v. McArthur, 16 Mich. 447; Andres v. Wells, 7 Johns. 260, 5 Am. Dec. 267. The defendants appear to recognize the foregoing rule, but argue that the evidence should have been received in mitigation of damages. In some states, where, in addition to compensating damages, the plaintiff is allowed punitive or exemplary damages, such evidence is admissible in mitigation of the latter, but not in reduction of actual or compensatory damages. In this state, however, the recovery is limited to actual or compensatory damages, and no punitive or exemplary damages are recoverable. Hence, such evidence, going only...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lauder v. Jones
... ... Stockert, 34 S.E. 821; Sunman v. Brewin, 52 ... Ind. 140; Nott v. Stoddard, 38 Vt. 25; Thrall v ... Smiley, 9 Cal. 529; Williams v. Fuller, 94 N.W ... In an ... action for libel, evidence of the truth of the publication ... can be received only when the ... ...
-
Morse v. Times-Republican Printing Co.
...St. Rep. 730; Starkie's Slander and Libel (2d Eng. Ed.) 166-168; Townshend's Slander and Libel, § 21; Cooley on Torts, 206; Williams v. Fuller (Neb.) 94 N. W. 118;White v. Nichols, 3 How. U. S. 266, 11 L. Ed. 591;McDonald v. Woodruff, 2 Dill. 246, Fed. Cas. No. 8,770;Huse v. Interocean, 12 ......
-
Morse v. Times-Republican Printing Co.
...730); Starkie's Slander and Libel (2d Eng. Ed.) 166-168; Townshend's Slander and Libel, section 21; Cooley on Torts, 206; Williams v. Fuller, 68 Neb. 354, 94 N.W. 118; White v. Nichols, 3 How. U.S. Rep. 266 (11 591); McDonald v. Woodruff, 2 Dill. 244, 16 F. Cas. 49, Fed. Cas. No. 8,770; Hus......
-
Wrege v. Jones
...injury or damages. Plank v. Grimm, 22 N.W. 470; Kerrains v. People, 60 N.Y. 221; Krippner v. Biebl, 28 Minn. 139, 9 N.W. 671; Williams et al. v. Fuller, 94 N.W. 118. may be proved like any other fact, and a witness may be asked with what intent he did an act. Seymour v. Wilson, 14 N.Y. 567;......