not_, see: Cooper _v._ Schlesinger, 111 U. S. 148; Hindman _v._ First
National Bank, (C. C. A.) 112 Fed. 931; Mueller Furnace Co. _v._
Cascade Foundry Co., 145 Fed. 596; Einstein _v._ Marshall, 58 Ala.
153; McCoy _v._ Prince, 11 Ala. App. 388; Stimson _v._ Helps, 9 Col.
33; Scholfield Gear Co. _v._ Scholfield, 71 Conn. 1; Upchurch _v._
Mizell, 50 Fla. 456; Corbett _v._ Gilbert, 24 Ga. 454; Miller _v._
John, 208 Ill. 173; Snively _v._ Meixsell, 97 Ill. App. 365; West _v._
Wright, 98 Ind. 335; Graves _v._ Lebanon Bank, 10 Bush, 23; Stone _v._
Denny, 4 Met. 151; Fisher _v._ Mellen, 103 Mass. 503; Beebe _v._
Knapp, 28 Mich. 53; Stone _v._ Covell, 29 Mich. 359; Bullitt _v._
Farrar, 42 Minn. 8; Hamlin _v._ Abell, 120 Mo. 188; Chase _v._ Rusk,
90 Mo. App. 25; Ruddy _v._ Gunby, (Mo.) 180 S. W. 1043; Rowell _v._
Chase, 61 N. H. 135; Shackett _v._ Bickford, 74 N. H. 57; Zabriskie
_v._ Smith, 13 N. Y. 322; Bennett _v._ Judson, 21 N. Y. 238; Taylor
_v._ Commercial Bank, 174 N. Y. 181; Bell _v._ James, 128 App. Div.
241; Whitehurst _v._ Life Ins. Co., 149 N. C. 273; Cawston _v._
Sturgis, 29 Or. 331; Robertson _v._ Frey, 72 Or. 599; Thompson _v._
Chambers, 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 213; Mitchell _v._ Zimmerman, 4 Tex. 75;
Katzenstein _v._ Reid, Murdock & Co., 41 Tex. Civ. App. 106; Benton
_v._ Kuykendall, (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 438; Wheeler _v._
Wheelock, 34 Vt. 553; Agnew _v._ Hackett, 80 Wash. 236; Cotzhausen
_v._ Simon, 47 Wis. 103.
Compare Ray County Bank _v._ Hutton, 224 Mo. 42; Ramsey _v._ Wallace,
100 N. C. 75.
Footnote 342:
“The doctrine seems to be well established by authority that the
conduct and admissions of a party operate against him in the nature of
an estoppel, wherever, in good conscience and honest dealing, he ought
not to be permitted to gainsay them. Thus, negligence becomes
constructive fraud,—although, strictly speaking, the actual intention
to mislead or deceive may be wanting, and the party may be innocent,
if innocence and gross negligence may be deemed compatible; and in
such cases the maxim is justly applied to him, that where one of two
innocent persons must suffer, he shall suffer who by his own acts
occasioned the confidence and loss. The application of the maxim to
the case before us is obvious. The principle involved in it is kindred
to that of an equitable estoppel, the difference being that the
application of the estoppel, instead of the maxim, avoids the loss to
the innocent party who has been misled by the conduct of another. See
1 Story’s Eq. Jur., secs. 387, 389; Lucas _v._ Hart, 5 Iowa, 415;
Commonwealth _v._ Moltz, 10 Pa. St. 527, 531; Smith _v._ McNeal, 68
Pa. St. 164.” Foster, J., in Stevens _v._ Dennett, 51 N. H. 324, 335.
“The usual form of expressing the situation which founds an estoppel
_in pais_ has been that followed in the rulings given, in which, as in
many of the older decisions, it is said that an intent to deceive is a
necessary element. But under this formula the jury were not prohibited
from finding the intention and the estoppel, if, without more, the
plaintiff spoke or acted falsely, knowing or having cause to believe
that his words or conduct reasonably might influence the defendant’s
action. The more modern statement, that one is responsible for the
word or act which he knows, or ought to know, will be acted upon by
another, includes the older statement that the estoppel comes from an
intention to mislead. White _v._ Duggan, 140 Mass. 18, 20. Tracy _v._
Lincoln, 145 Mass. 357, 359. O’Donnell _v._ Clinton, 145 Mass. 461,
463. Washburn _v._ Hammond, 151 Mass. 132, 141.” Barker. J., in Stiff
_v._ Ashton, 155 Mass. 130, 133.
Footnote 343:
Milson _v._ Gerstenberg, 43 App. D. C. 165; Ballard _v._ Thibodeau,
109 Me. 559; Kiefer _v._ Rogers, 19 Minn. 32; Hedin _v._ Minneapolis
Medical Institute, 62 Minn. 146; Flaherty _v._ Till, 119 Minn. 191;
Devero _v._ Sparks, 189 Mo. App. 500; Craig _v._ Ward, 1 Abb. Dec.
454; Garvin _v._ Harrell, 27 Okl. 373; Wells _v._ Driskell, (Tex. Civ.
App.) 149 S. W. 205 _Accord_.
See Water Com’rs _v._ Robbins, 82 Conn. 623; Auman _v._ McKibben, 179
Ill. App. 425; Huntress _v._ Blodgett, 206 Mass. 318; Bank _v._ Wood,
189 Mo. App. 62.
_As to the fiction of “presumption of knowledge,”_ see: Hicks _v._
Stevens, 121 Ill. 186; Ward _v._ Trimble, 103 Ky. 153; Reynolds _v._
Evans, 123 Md. 365; Unitype Co. _v._ Ashcraft, 155 N. C. 63; Collins
_v._ Chipman, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 563. Compare Brooks _v._ Hamilton, 15
Minn. 26.
Footnote 344:
O’Neill _v._ Conway, 88 Conn. 651; Bethell _v._ Bethell, 92 Ind. 318;
Riley _v._ Bell, 120 Ia. 618; Gund Brewing Co. _v._ Peterson, 130 Ia.
301; Davis _v._ Central Land Co., 162 Ia. 269; Altoona State Bank _v._
Hart, 82 Kan. 398; Braley _v._ Powers, 92 Me. 203; Litchfield _v._
Hutchinson, 117 Mass. 195; Savage _v._ Stevens, 126 Mass. 207; Teague
_v._ Irwin, 127 Mass. 217; Adams _v._ Collins, 196 Mass. 422; Huntress
_v._ Blodgett, 206 Mass. 318; Chatham Furnace Co. _v._ Moffatt, 147
Mass. 403; Riggs _v._ Thorpe, 67 Minn. 217; Vincent _v._ Corbitt, 94
Miss. 46; Western Cattle Co. _v._ Gates, 190 Mo. 391; Paretti _v._
Rebenack, 81 Mo. App. 494; Leicher _v._ Keeney, 98 Mo. App. 394, 110
Mo. App. 292; Leach _v._ Bond, 129 Mo. App. 315; Crosby _v._ Wells, 73
N. J. Law, 790; Thompson _v._ Koewing, 79 N. J. Law, 246; Hadcock _v._
Osmer, 153 N. Y. 604; Modlin _v._ Roanoke Navigation Co., 145 N. C.
218; Pate _v._ Blades, 163 N. C. 267; Joines _v._ Combs, 38 Okl. 380;
Gibbens _v._ Bourland, (Tex. Civ. App.) 145 S. W. 274; Grant _v._
Huschke, 74 Wash. 257; Tolly _v._ Poteet, 62 W. Va. 231; Rogers _v._
Rosenfeld, 158 Wis. 285 _Accord_. See Roberts _v._ Anheuser Busch
Ass’n, 211 Mass. 449.
In Brownlie _v._ Campbell, 5 App. Cas. 925, Lord Blackburn said (pp.
952—53): “The Courts of Law had to refer fraud, in which knowledge was
an essential ingredient, to a jury. A Court of Equity had to find it
for itself, and consequently the judges in Courts of Equity were not
driven to be so precisely accurate in stating exactly whether they
were going upon the ground that there was a contract or warranty that
the thing was so, or whether they were going upon the ground that the
party, knowing it was not, and representing that it was, had committed
a fraud in doing that. Most of the cases (the leading one is Burrowes
_v._ Loch, 10 Ves. 470, and it is sufficient to mention that, though
there were others) when looked at, if they do not absolutely amount to
contract, come uncommonly near it. In Burrowes _v._ Loch a man
proposing to lend money on the security of an equitable assignment of
a share of what remained due on account of the residue of a testator’s
estate, went to the trustee who held the fund and asked him, telling
him the facts, ‘I am going to lend money upon the security of this
share, has any prior loan upon this been communicated to you so as to
make you have prior notice, so as to make that other loan come in
before me and cut me out, tell me that, in order that I may know
whether I will lend the money or not.’ The party on the other side
answered, ‘There has been none such.’ To say that that is not warranty
or contract that he has received no such notice is, I think, going
very near the wind; if it was not that it was so uncommonly like it,
that I cannot make the distinction myself. That would have been
sufficient for the Master of the Rolls to say, ‘You have warranted
this.’ He also had considerable ground for doubting whether the man
had really _bona fide_ forgotten. The man, he seems to have thought,
had thought this, ‘I will not take the trouble of a search,’ the fact
being that he really knew nothing about this and would not take the
trouble of looking, but he boldly made the assertion, ‘I know there is
none,’ saying as a fact, ‘I know there is none,’ when the real truth
could not be more than ‘I am pretty sure there is none.’ If, when a
man thinks it is highly probable that a thing exists, he chooses to
say he knows the thing exists, that is really asserting what is
false—it is positive fraud. That has been repeatedly laid down, and I
think the more it is considered the more clear it becomes. If you
choose to say, and say without inquiry, ‘I warrant that,’ that is a
contract. If you say, ‘I know it,’ and if you say that in order to
save the trouble of inquiring, that is a false representation—you are
saying what is false to induce them to act upon it. I think all the
cases which have been cited come round to pointing to that, but none
of them, as far as I am aware, are in contradiction with that which I
have cited from Chief Justice Tindal, and I think there are a good
many other authorities to the same effect.”
_As to liability where defendant had no reasonable ground to believe
what he stated_, see Mayer _v._ Salazar, 84 Cal. 646; McCabe _v._
Desnoyers, 20 S. D. 581.
_Statement as to matter of which obviously defendant could not have
personal knowledge_, see: Krause _v._ Cook, 144 Mich. 365; Spead _v._
Tomlinson, 73 N. H. 46.
Footnote 345:
Part of the statement is an abridgment of the report in 6 Bingham,
396.
Footnote 346:
Hindman _v._ First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 112 Fed. 931; Hart _v._
Tallmadge, 2 Day, 381; Young _v._ Hall, 4 Ga. 95; Endsley _v._ Johns,
120 Ill. 469; Leonard _v._ Springer, 197 Ill. 532; Skeels _v._ Porter,
165 Ia. 255; Carpenter _v._ Wright, 52 Kan. 221; Bean _v._ Herrick, 12
Me. 262; Page _v._ Bent, 2 Met. 371; Stoney Creek Woolen Co. _v._
Smalley, 111 Mich. 321; Busterud _v._ Farrington, 36 Minn. 320;
Brownlee _v._ Hewitt, 1 Mo. App. 360; Bingham _v._ Fish, 86 N. J. Law,
316; White _v._ Merritt, 7 N. Y. 352; Hubbard _v._ Briggs, 31 N. Y.
518; Carpenter _v._ Lee, 5 Yerg. 265; Paddock _v._ Fletcher, 42 Vt.
389 _Accord_.
Footnote 347:
Statement of facts and arguments of counsel omitted.
Footnote 348:
See West London Bank _v._ Kitson, 13 Q. B. D. 360; National Bank _v._
Kershaw Oil Mill, (C. C. A.) 202 Fed. 90. Compare Tackey _v._ McBain,
[1912] A. C. 186.
Footnote 349:
Iasigi _v._ Brown, 17 How. 183; Bank of Montreal _v._ Thayer, 7 Fed.
622; Merchants Nat. Bank _v._ Armstrong, 65 Fed. 932; Hindman _v._
First Nat. Bank, (C. C. A.) 98 Fed. 562, 112 Fed. 931; Western Tel.
Co. _v._ Schriver, 141 Fed. 538; Harrison _v._ Savage, 19 Ga. 310;
Slade _v._ Little, 20 Ga. 371; Hunnewell _v._ Duxbury, 154 Mass. 286;
Nash _v._ Minnesota Title & Trust Co., 159 Mass. 437; Rawlings _v._
Bean, 80 Mo. 614; Lembeck _v._ Gerken, 88 N. J. Law, 329; McCracken
_v._ West, 17 Ohio, 16; Wells _v._ Cook, 16 Ohio St. 67 _Accord_. But
see Merchants Nat. Bank _v._ Robison, 8 Utah, 256.
_Person or member of a class to whom defendant expected the
representation to be passed on_, see Shrewsbury _v._ Blount, 2 Man. &
Gr. 475; Gerhard _v._ Bates, 2 E. & B. 476; Bedford _v._ Bagshaw, 4 H.
& N. 538; Scott _v._ Brown, [1892] 2 Q. B. 724; Andrews _v._ Mockford,
[1896] 1 Q. B. 372; Warfield _v._ Clark, 118 Ia. 69; Wells _v._
Western Tel. Co., 144 Ia. 605; Henry _v._ Dennis, 95 Me. 24; Chubbuck
_v._ Cleveland, 37 Minn. 466; Baker _v._ Crandall, 78 Mo. 584; Stuart
_v._ Bank of Staplehurst, 57 Neb. 569; Addington _v._ Allen, 11 Wend.
374; Hadcock _v._ Osmer, 153 N. Y. 604; Cazeaux _v._ Mali, 25 Barb.
578; Converse _v._ Sickles, 16 App. Div. 49.
Footnote 350:
Statement abridged. Part of opinion omitted.
Footnote 351:
In Allaire _v._ Whitney, 1 Hill, 484, 487, Cowen, J., says that actual
damage is not necessary to an action for fraud; and see also Ingraham,
J., in Isman _v._ Loring, 130 App. Div. 845. The same doctrine is
stated in Northrop _v._ Hill, 57 N. Y. 351; and in Van Velsor _v._
Seaberger, 35 Ill. App. 598; but neither case was one of merely
nominal damages. Leadbetter _v._ Morris, 3 Jones, Law, 543, sustains
the view of Cowen, J. The doctrine of Cowen, J., in Allaire _v._
Whitney is also cited approvingly in 1 Sedgwick on Damages, 8th ed., §
101, and in 1 Sutherland on Damages, 3d ed., § 10.
But the great weight of authority is against this doctrine, and
accords with the view taken by the Minnesota court in the above case
of Alden _v._ Wright: viz., that an action of deceit cannot be
maintained in the absence of actual damage. See Pollock, Torts, 9 ed.,
190, 291; Pollock, Law of Fraud in British India, 22, 23; 1 Jaggard,
Torts, 600, 601; Pigott, Torts, 270, 271; McCarrel _v._ Hayes, 186
Ala. 323; Winkler _v._ Jerrue, 20 Cal. App. 555; Morrison _v._ Martin,
84 Conn. 628; Wesselhoeft _v._ Schanze, 153 Ill. App. 443; Bailey _v._
Oatis, 85 Kan. 339; Barnard _v._ Napier, 167 Ky. 824; Reynolds _v._
Evans, 123 Md. 365; Brackett _v._ Perry, 201 Mass. 502; Tregner _v._
Hazen, 116 App. Div. 829; Badger _v._ Pond, 120 App. Div. 619.
Compare Skowhegan Bank _v._ Maxfield, 83 Me. 576 (fraudulently
inducing plaintiff to pay debts); Garry _v._ Garry, 187 Mass. 62
(inducing release of inchoate right of dower); Urtz _v._ New York R.
Co., 202 N. Y. 170 (release of disputed claim).
Footnote 352:
Statement abridged. Part of opinion omitted.
Footnote 353:
In re Pennewell, 119 Fed. 139; Kimmans _v._ Chandler, 13 Ia. 327; Dunn
_v._ Bishop, (R. I.) 90 Atl. 1073 _Accord_. Compare Van Vliet
Automobile Co. _v._ Crowell, (Ia.) 149 N. W. 861.
Footnote 354:
A new statement has been made covering but one point and only the
portion of the opinion relating to that point is given.
Footnote 355:
Ely _v._ Stannard, 46 Conn. 124; Goring _v._ Fitzgerald, 105 Ia. 507;
Briggs _v._ Brushaber, 43 Mich. 330; Currier _v._ Poor, 155 N. Y. 344;
Hoffman _v._ Toft, 70 Or. 488 _Accord_.
See Conway Bank _v._ Pease, 76 N. H. 319.
Footnote 356:
Statement abridged.
Footnote 357:
See Graham _v._ Peale, (C. C. A.) 173 Fed. 9 (delay in asserting
claim); Spreckels _v._ Gorrill, 152 Cal. 383; Barron Estate Co. _v._
Woodruff Co., 163 Cal. 561 (preparations for building); Williams
Crusher & Pulverizer Co. _v._ Lyth Tile Co., 150 N. Y. Suppl. 6
(expensive investigation preliminary to contract not made).
Footnote 358:
“But there is one thing which intervenes between the _injuria_ and the
_damnum_ and that is the plaintiff’s _action_ which results in damage.
It is clear that a misrepresentation cannot of itself directly produce
damage. It requires a means of conveyance, and that is the action
which it produces, and which results in damage.”
“... It is the action of the plaintiff, and not the damage, which must
be materially induced by the misrepresentation.”
“The fallacy is in regarding the damage, and the action resulting in
damage, as the same thing.” Moncrieff, Law of Fraud and
Misrepresentation, 187.
Footnote 359:
Statement abridged and arguments omitted.
Footnote 360:
Reaffirmed in Sigafus _v._ Porter, 179 U. S. 116. The authorities on
each side of this controverted question are collected in a note to
George _v._ Hesse, (100 Tex. 44) 8 L. R. A. N. S. 804. For later
cases, see: Harris _v._ Neil, 144 Ga. 519 (_accord_); Trayne _v._
Boardman, 207 Mass. 581; Crawford _v._ Armacost, 85 Wash. 622
(_contra_).
Footnote 361:
Statement abridged; arguments omitted; also part of opinion.
Footnote 362:
Henderson _v._ Henshall, (C. C. A.) 54 Fed. 320; Tooker _v._ Alston,
159 Fed. 599; Jordan _v._ Pickett, 78 Ala. 331; Dingle _v._ Trask, 7
Col. App. 16; Carondelet Iron Works _v._ Moore, 78 Ill. 65; Jones _v._
Foster, 175 Ill. 459; Press _v._ Hair, 133 Ill. App. 528; Anderson
Foundry _v._ Myers, 15 Ind. App. 385; Moore _v._ Turbeville, 2 Bibb,
602; Weaver _v._ Shriver, 79 Md. 530; Silver _v._ Frazier, 3 All. 382;
Parker _v._ Moulton, 114 Mass. 99; Poland _v._ Brownell, 131 Mass.
138; Thompson _v._ Pentecost, 206 Mass. 505; Anderson _v._ McPike, 86
Mo. 293; Brown _v._ Kansas City R. Co., 187 Mo. App. 104; Morrill _v._
Madden, 35 Minn. 493; Grindrod _v._ Anglo-American Bond Co., 34 Mont.
169; Power _v._ Turner, 37 Mont. 521; Osborne _v._ Missouri R. Co., 71
Neb. 180; Saunders _v._ Hatterman, 2 Ired. 32; Mulholland _v._
Washington Match Co., 35 Wash. 315; Mosher _v._ Post, 89 Wis. 602;
Farr _v._ Peterson, 91 Wis. 182; Kaiser _v._ Nummerdor, 120 Wis. 234;
Jacobsen _v._ Whitely, 138 Wis. 434 _Accord_.
But see Wilson _v._ Higbee, 62 Fed. 723; King _v._ Livingston Mfg.
Co., 180 Ala. 118; Mason _v._ Thornton, 74 Ark. 46; Linington _v._
Strong, 107 Ill. 295; Robinson _v._ Reinhart, 137 Ind. 674; Hanks _v._
McKee, 2 Litt. 227; Bowen _v._ Carter, 124 Mass. 426; Arnold _v._
Teele, 182 Mass. 1; Light _v._ Jacobs, 183 Mass. 206; Bachman _v._
Travelers Ins. Co., (N. H.) 97 Atl. 223; Fox _v._ Duffy, 95 App. Div.
202.
“The doctrine ... is not to be extended. It relates merely to seller’s
talk.” Sheldon, J., in Townsend _v._ Niles, 210 Mass. 524, 531.
_Equal means of knowledge_, see Hill _v._ Bush, 19 Ark. 522; Strong
_v._ Peters, 2 Root, 93; McDaniell _v._ Strohecker, 19 Ga. 432; Knight
_v._ Gaultney, 23 Ill. App. 376; Foley _v._ Cowgill, 5 Blackf. 18;
Boddy _v._ Henry, 113 Ia. 462; Hinchman _v._ Weeks, 85 Mich. 535;
Bradford _v._ Wright, 145 Mo. App. 623; Conway Nat. Bank _v._ Pease,
76 N. H. 319; Long _v._ Warren, 68 N. Y. 426; Crislip _v._ Cain, 19 W.
Va. 438.
_Execution of instrument without reading it_, see Dunham Lumber Co.
_v._ Holt, 123 Ala. 336; Robinson _v._ Glass, 94 Ind. 211; Porter _v._
United Railways, 165 Mo. App. 619; Muller _v._ Rosenblath, 157 App.
Div. 513; Griffin _v._ Roanoke Lumber Co., 140 N. C. 514.
_Reliance on friendship_, see Gray _v._ Reeves, 69 Wash. 374.
Footnote 363:
Arguments omitted; also part of opinion.
Footnote 364:
Martin _v._ Burford, (C. C. A.) 181 Fed. 922; Hutchinson _v._ Gorman,
71 Ark. 305; Scott _v._ Moore, 89 Ark. 321; Montgomery _v._ McLaury,
143 Cal. 83; Teague _v._ Hall, 171 Cal. 668; Eames _v._ Morgan, 37
Ill. 260; Ladd _v._ Pigott, 114 Ill. 647; Kehl _v._ Abram, 210 Ill.
218 (public records); Backer _v._ Pyne, 130 Ind. 288 (records);
McGibbons _v._ Wilder, 78 Ia. 531; Faust _v._ Hosford, 119 Ia. 97
(records); Scott _v._ Burnight, 131 Ia. 507; McKee _v._ Eaton, 26 Kan.
226 (records of patent office); Davis _v._ Jenkins, 46 Kan. 19
(records of land office); Carpenter _v._ Wright, 52 Kan. 221 (deed
records); Trimble _v._ Ward, 97 Ky. 748; Martin _v._ Jordan, 60 Me.
531; Braley _v._ Powers, 92 Me. 203; Harlow _v._ Perry, 113 Me. 239;
David _v._ Park, 103 Mass. 501 (records of patent office); Holst _v._
Stewart, 161 Mass. 516; Rollins _v._ Quimby, 200 Mass. 162 (mortgage
records); Jackson _v._ Armstrong, 50 Mich. 65; Smith _v._ Werkheiser,
152 Mich. 177; Faribault _v._ Sater, 13 Minn. 223; Redding _v._
Wright, 49 Minn. 322; Union Bank _v._ Hunt, 76 Mo. 439; Cottrill _v._
Krum, 100 Mo. 397; Stonemets _v._ Head, 248 Mo. 243; Shearer _v._
Hill, 125 Mo. App. 375; Gerner _v._ Mosher, 58 Neb. 135 (books of
corporation); Perry _v._ Rogers, 62 Neb. 898; Martin _v._ Hutton, 90
Neb. 34; Bradbury _v._ Haines, 60 N. H. 123; Blossom _v._ Barrett, 37
N. Y. 434 (records of court); Gage _v._ Peetsch, 16 Misc. 291
(mortgage records); Blumenfield _v._ Stine, 42 Misc. 411 (records);
Blacknall _v._ Rowland, 108 N. C. 554; Bank of North America _v._
Sturdy, 7 R. I. 109; Handy _v._ Waldron, 19 R. I. 618 (failure to
inquire of references); Hunt _v._ Barker, 22 R. I. 18 (deed records);
Wright _v._ United States Mfg. Co., (Tex. Civ. App.) 42 S. W. 789 (tax
records); Chamberlain _v._ Rankin, 49 Vt. 133; Morrill _v._ Palmer, 68
Vt. 1; Jordan _v._ Walker, 115 Va. 109; City _v._ Tacoma Light Co., 17
Wash. 458; Simons _v._ Cissna, 52 Wash. 115; Borde _v._ Kingsley, 76
Wash. 613; Hall _v._ Bank, 143 Wis. 303 (records); Woteshek _v._
Neuman, 151 Wis. 365; Rogers _v._ Rosenfeld, 158 Wis. 285 _Accord_.
See Henry _v._ Allen, 93 Ala. 197; Hanger _v._ Evins, 38 Ark. 334;
Wheeler _v._ Baars, 33 Fla. 696 (records); Forbes _v._ Thorpe, 209
Mass. 570. Compare Campbell _v._ Frankem, 65 Ind. 591.
_Assertion of title_, see: Crandall _v._ Parks, 152 Cal. 772; Hale
_v._ Philbrick, 42 Ia. 81; Young _v._ Hopkins, 6 T. B. Mon. 18; Cobb
_v._ Wright, 43 Minn. 83; Manley _v._ Johnson, 85 Vt. 262.
_Statements as to boundaries_, see: Roberts _v._ Plaisted, 63 Me. 335;
Olson _v._ Orton, 28 Minn. 36; Clark _v._ Baird, Seld. Notes, 187;
Schwenk _v._ Naylor, 102 N. Y. 683; Roberts _v._ Holliday, 10 S. D.
576.
_Plaintiff informed of truth by third person_, see: Moncrief _v._
Wilkinson, 93 Ala. 373; Haight _v._ Hayt, 19 N. Y. 464; Grosjean _v._
Galloway, 82 App. Div. 380.
_Refusal of defendant to put representation in writing_, Ettlinger
_v._ Weil, 184 N. Y. 179.
Footnote 365:
O’Neill _v._ Conway, 88 Conn. 651; Antle _v._ Sexton, 137 Ill. 410;
Ledbetter _v._ Davis, 121 Ind. 119; Speed _v._ Hollingsworth, 54 Kan.
436; Judd _v._ Walker, 215 Mo. 312; Miller _v._ Wissert, 38 Okl. 808;
Farris _v._ Gilder, (Tex. Civ. App.) 115 S. W. 645 _Accord_.
Compare Cawston _v._ Sturgis, 29 Or. 331. And see Disney _v._ Lang, 90
Kan. 309.
Footnote 366:
Credle _v._ Swindell, 63 N. C. 305; Wamsley _v._ Currence, 25 W. Va.
543 _Accord_.
See Cagney _v._ Cuson, 77 Ind. 494. Compare Lewis _v._ Jewell, 151
Mass. 345.
_Representations as to matter of law_, see Eaglesfield _v._
Londonderry, 4 Ch. D. 693, 702–703; Mutual Life Ins. Co. _v._ Phinney,
178 U. S. 327; Martin _v._ Wharton, 38 Ala. 637; Lehman _v._
Shackleford, 50 Ala. 437; McDonald _v._ Smith, 95 Ark. 523; Kehl _v._
Abram, 210 Ill. 218; Hill _v._ Coates, 127 Ill. App. 196; Clodfelter
_v._ Hulett, 72 Ind. 137; Kinney _v._ Dodge, 101 Ind. 573; Whitman
_v._ Atchison R. Co., 85 Kan. 150; Thompson _v._ Phoenix Ins. Co., 75
Me. 55; Stevens _v._ Odlin, 109 Me. 417; Bilafsky _v._ Conveyancers
Ins. Co., 192 Mass. 504; Kerr _v._ Shurtleff, 218 Mass. 167; Rose _v._
Saunders, 38 Hun, 575; Unckles _v._ Hentz, 18 Misc. 644; Moreland _v._
Atchison, 19 Tex. 303; Texas Cotton Co. _v._ Denny, (Tex. Civ. App.)
78 S. W. 557; Gormely _v._ Gymnastic Ass’n, 55 Wis. 350.
_Law of another state_, see Travelers Protective Ass’n _v._ Smith, 183
Ind. 59; Schneider _v._ Schneider, 125 Ia. 1; Anderson _v._ Heasley,
95 Kan. 572; Wood _v._ Roeder, 50 Neb. 476.
Footnote 367:
“This contention assumes that the defrauded party owes to the party
who defrauded him a duty to use diligence to discover the fraud. There
is no such obligation. One who perpetrates a fraud cannot complain
because his victim continues to have a confidence which a more
vigilant person could not have.” Carpenter, J., in Smith _v._
McDonald, 139 Mich. 225, 229. See Barley _v._ Walford, 9 Q. B. 197,
209. Compare Thaler _v._ Neidermeyer, 185 Mo. App. 257.
Footnote 368:
The statement has been redrawn and only parts of the opinion are
printed.
Footnote 369:
See Hicks _v._ Stevens, 121 Ill. 186.
Footnote 370:
The statement of the case has been abridged and only a part of the
opinion is given.
Footnote 371:
The court decided that the answer was good.
Footnote 372:
In accordance with the opinion of the majority of the court see Clarke
_v._ Postan, 6 Car. & P. 423; Stapp _v._ Partlow, Dudley, (Ga.) 176;
Feazle _v._ Simpson, 2 Ill. 30 (_semble_); Holmes _v._ Johnson,
Busbee, 44; Britton _v._ Granger, 13 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 281, 291.
In accordance with the opinion of the minority see Gregory _v._ Derby,
8 Car. & P. 749, 750 (_semble_); Cooper _v._ Armour, 42 Fed. 215, 217;
Sheppard _v._ Furniss, 19 Ala. 760 (_semble_); Davis _v._ Sanders, 133
Ala. 275, 278 (_semble_); Newfield _v._ Copperman, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S.
360 (_semble_); Lawyer _v._ Loomis, 3 Th. & C. 393, 395; Mitchell _v._
Donanski, 28 R. I. 94; O’Driscoll _v._ McBurney, 2 N. & McC. 54
(_semble_); Heyward _v._ Cuthbert, 4 McC. 354 (_semble_).
Compare Swift _v._ Witchard, 103 Ga. 193.
_Arrest without warrant, not followed by prosecution_, see Auerbach
_v._ Freeman, 43 App. D. C. 176; McDonald _v._ National Art Co., 69
Misc. 325.
_Search warrant issued but no arrest or seizure of property_, see
Gulsby _v._ Louisville R. Co., 167 Ala. 122; Hardin _v._ Hight, 106
Ark. 190; Chicago R. Co. _v._ Holliday, 30 Okl. 680; Olson _v._
Haggerty, 69 Wash. 48.
_Application for a warrant, none issued_, see Schneider _v._ Schlang,
159 App. Div. 385. But see Kashare _v._ Robbins, 135 N. Y. Supp. 1041.
Some jurisdictions, however, require legal process of at least _prima
facie_ validity. See Strain _v._ Irwin, 195 Ala. 414; Smith _v._
Brown, 119 Md. 236; Tiede _v._ Fuhr, 264 Mo. 622; Segusky _v._
Williams, 89 S. C. 414.
Cf. Grissom _v._ Lawler, 10 Ala. App. 540 (plaintiff gave bond after
complaint, so no process issued).
Footnote 373:
Pippet _v._ Hearn, 5 B. & Al. 634; Rutherford _v._ Dyer, 146 Ala. 665;
Peterson _v._ Hoyt, 4 Alaska, 713; Harrington _v._ Tibbet, 143 Cal.
78; Streight _v._ Bell, 37 Ind. 550; Shaul _v._ Brown, 28 Ia. 37; Bell
_v._ Keepers, 37 Kan. 64; Potter _v._ Gjertsen, 37 Minn. 386; Stocking
_v._ Howard, 73 Mo. 25; Hackler _v._ Miller, 79 Neb. 209; Dennis _v._
Ryan, 65 N. Y. 385; Kline _v._ Shuler, 8 Ired. 484; Chicago R. Co.
_v._ Holliday, 30 Okl. 680; Ward _v._ Sutor, 70 Tex. 343; Strehlow
_v._ Pettit, 96 Wis. 22; McIntosh _v._ Wales, 21 Wyo. 397 _Accord_.
Alexander _v._ West, 6 Ga. App. 72 _Contra_.
_Prosecution under unconstitutional statute_: Murten _v._ Garbe, 91
Neb. 439.
_Court without jurisdiction_: Calhoun _v._ Bell, 136 La. 149. Compare
Grorud _v._ Lossl, 48 Mont. 274.
Footnote 374:
1 Marsh. 12, S. C.
Footnote 375:
The statement of the case has been taken from 1 Marsh. 12; the
arguments of counsel are omitted.
Footnote 376:
See Saville _v._ Roberts, 1 Ld. Ray. 374; 12 Mod. 208, S. C.
“It is difficult to see on what grounds it can be maintained that a
charge of breaking the peace conveys no imputation on the character of
the person charged, and it may be doubted whether the authority of the
cases above mentioned (Byne _v._ Moore and Saville _v._ Roberts) would
now be recognized on this point.” Clerk & Lindsell, Torts, (5 ed.)
663.
Footnote 377:
Only the opinion of ERLE, C. J., is given.
Footnote 378:
Hyde _v._ Greuch, 62 Md. 577; Pixley _v._ Reed, 26 Minn. 80
(_semble_); Apgar _v._ Woolston, 43 N. J. Law, 57. 65 (_semble_); Bump
_v._ Betts, 19 Wend. 421; Fortman _v._ Rottier, 8 Ohio St. 548
_Accord_.
See Brinkley _v._ Knight, 163 N. C. 194 (release by constable without
a hearing).
Footnote 379:
Parker _v._ Langley, 10 Mod. 209; Whitworth _v._ Hall, 2 B. & Ad. 695;
Mellor _v._ Baddeley, 2 Cr. & M. 675; Watkins _v._ Lee, 5 M. & W. 270;
McCann _v._ Preneveau, 10 Ont. 573; Poitras _v._ LeBeau, 14 Can. S. C.
742; Stewart _v._ Sonneborn, 98 U. S. 187; Steel _v._ Williams, 18
Ind. 161; West _v._ Hayes, 104 Ind. 251; Olson _v._ Neal, 63 Ia. 214;
Wood _v._ Laycock, 3 Met. (Ky.) 192; Smith _v._ Brown, 119 Md. 236;
Hamilburgh _v._ Shepard, 119 Mass. 30; Wilson _v._ Hale, 178 Mass.
111; Pixley _v._ Reed, 26 Minn. 80; Lowe _v._ Wartman, 47 N. J. Law,
413; Clark _v._ Cleveland, 6 Hill, 344; Searll _v._ McCracken, 16 How.
Pr. 262; Swartwout _v._ Dickelman, 12 Hun, 358; Johnson _v._ Finch, 93
N. C. 205; Forster _v._ Orr. 17 Or. 447; Scheibler _v._ Steinburg, 129
Tenn. 614; Luby _v._ Bennett, 111 Wis. 613 _Accord_.
Consequently, the Statute of Limitations does not run until the
prosecution is terminated. Mayor _v._ Hall, 12 Can. S. C. 74; Printup
_v._ Smith, 74 Ga. 157; Rider _v._ Kite, 61 N. J. Law, 8.
Also although discharged by a magistrate, plaintiff can not sue if the
grand jury afterwards indict. Hartshorn _v._ Smith, 104 Ga. 235;
Weglein _v._ Trow Directory Co., 152 App. Div. 705. See Schippel _v._
Norton, 38 Kan. 567; Knott _v._ Sargent, 125 Mass. 95. Compare Simmons
_v._ Sullivan, 42 App. D. C. 523 (amended or substitute information,
altering the charge); Mistich _v._ Collette, 136 La. 294 (second
prosecution instituted after termination of first and still pending).
Footnote 380:
Everything is omitted, except the opinion of the court on the question
of the termination of the prosecution.
Footnote 381:
Cotton _v._ Wilson, Minor, 203; Hurgren _v._ Union Co., 141 Cal. 585;
Chapman _v._ Woods, 6 Blackf. 504; Richter _v._ Koster, 45 Ind. 440;
Coffey _v._ Myers, 84 Ind. 105; Kelley _v._ Sage, 12 Kan. 109; Bell
_v._ Matthews, 37 Kan. 686; Yocum _v._ Polly, 1 B. Mon. 358; Stanton
_v._ Hart, 27 Mich. 539; Swensgaard _v._ Davis, 33 Minn. 368
(_semble_); Kennedy _v._ Holladay, 25 Mo. App. 503; Casebeer _v._
Drahoble, 13 Neb. 465; Casebeer _v._ Rice, 18 Neb. 203; Apgar _v._
Woolston, 43 N. J. Law, 57; Lowe _v._ Wartman, 47 N. J. Law, 413;
Clark _v._ Cleveland, 6 Hill, 344 (_semble_); Moulton _v._ Beecher, 8
Hun, 100; Fay _v._ O’Neill, 36 N. Y. 11 (_semble_); Murray _v._
Lackey, 2 Murph. 368; Rice _v._ Ponder, 7 Ired. 390; Hatch _v._ Cohen,
84 N. C. 602; Marcus _v._ Bernstein, 117 N. C. 31; Douglas _v._ Allen,
56 Ohio St. 156; Murphy _v._ Moore, (Pa.) 11 Atl. 665; Driggs _v._
Burton, 44 Vt. 124; Woodworth _v._ Mills, 61 Wis. 44; Manz _v._
Klippel, 158 Wis. 557; McCrosson _v._ Cummings, 5 Hawn, 391 _Accord_.
Massachusetts formerly held to the contrary. Parker _v._ Farley, 10
Cush. 279. But see Graves _v._ Dawson, 130 Mass. 78, 133 Mass. 419;
Langford _v._ Boston R. Co., 144 Mass. 431; Briggs _v._ Shepard Mfg.
Co., 217 Mass. 446.
_Indictment quashed_, see Simmons _v._ Sullivan, 42 App. D. C. 523;
Wilkerson _v._ McGee, 265 Mo. 574; Reit _v._ Meyer, 160 App. Div. 752.
Case stricken from docket because sent to wrong court, Sandlin _v._
Anders, 187 Ala. 473.
_Termination of a previous civil action._—If a party sues for a
malicious arrest or seizure of property in a civil action, a voluntary
abandonment of the latter action by the plaintiff therein is
equivalent to its termination in favor of his adversary. Arundell _v._
White, 14 East, 216; Nicholson _v._ Coghill, 4 B. & C. 21; Pierce _v._
Street, 3 B. & Ad. 397; Watkins _v._ Lee, 5 M. & W. 270; Ross _v._
Norman, 5 Ex. 359; Emery _v._ Ginnan, 24 Ill. App. 65; Cardival _v._
Smith, 109 Mass. 158; Ludwick _v._ Penny, 158 N. C. 104; Mayer _v._
Walter, 64 Pa. St. 283. Compare Hales _v._ Raines, 162 Mo. App. 46
(action recommenced after voluntary nonsuit).
The rule is the same as to malicious prosecutions of civil actions
without arrest or attachment in jurisdictions where one is allowed to
sue for malicious prosecution of a civil action, without more. Wall
_v._ Toomey, 52 Conn. 35; Marbourg _v._ Smith, 11 Kan. 554; Mitchell
_v._ Sullivan, 30 Kan. 231. See also Wilson _v._ Hale, 178 Mass. 111;
Luby _v._ Bennett, 111 Wis. 613.
But an abandonment of the previous proceeding, brought about as a
compromise, is not a termination in favor of the original defendant.
Wilkinson _v._ Howel, M. & M. 495; Kinsey _v._ Wallace, 36 Cal. 462
(_semble_); Waters _v._ Winn, 142 Ga. 138; Emery _v._ Ginnan, 24 Ill.
App. 65; Fadner _v._ Filer, 27 Ill. App. 506; Ruehl Brewing Co. _v._
Atlas Brewing Co., 187 Ill. App. 392; Singer Machine Co. _v._ Dyer,
156 Ky. 156; Marks _v._ Gray, 42 Me. 86; Sartwell _v._ Parker, 141
Mass. 405; Langford _v._ Boston R. Co., 144 Mass. 431; Rachelman _v._
Skinner, 46 Minn. 196; McCormick _v._ Sisson, 7 Cow. 715; Gallagher
_v._ Stoddard, 47 Hun, 101; Atwood _v._ Beirne, 73 Hun, 547 (but see
Reit _v._ Meyer, 160 App. Div. 752); Welch _v._ Cheek, 115 N. C. 310;
Clark _v._ Everett, 2 Grant, (Pa.) 416; Mayer _v._ Walter, 64 Pa. St.
283, 287; Rounds _v._ Humes, 7 R. I. 535; Russell _v._ Morgan, 24 R.
I. 134. Unless the settlement was obtained by duress of the person or
the goods of the original defendant. Morton _v._ Young, 55 Me. 24;
White _v._ International Textbook Co., 156 Ia. 210.
Footnote 382:
Only the opinion of the court is given.
Footnote 383:
Anon., 6 Mod. 73; Turner _v._ Ambler, 10 Q. B. 252; Hailes _v._ Marks,
7 H. & N. 56; Wheeler _v._ Nesbitt, 24 How. 544, 550; Stewart _v._
Sonneborn, 98 U. S. 187; Sanders _v._ Palmer, 55 Fed. 217; Jordan _v._
Alabama Co., 81 Ala. 220; Price _v._ Morris, 122 Ark. 382; Mark _v._
Rich, 43 App. D. C. 182; Marable _v._ Mayer, 78 Ga. 710; Joiner _v._
Ocean Co., 86 Ga. 238; Ames _v._ Snider, 69 Ill. 376; Barrett _v._
Spaids, 70 Ill. 408; Leyenberger _v._ Paul, 12 Ill. App. 635; Morrell
_v._ Martin, 17 Ill. App. 336; Adams _v._ Lisher, 3 Blackf. 241; Green
_v._ Cochran, 43 Ia. 544; Yocum _v._ Polly, 1 B. Mon. 358; Medcalfe
_v._ Brooklyn Co., 45 Md. 198; Flickinger _v._ Wagner, 46 Md. 580;
Stone _v._ Crocker, 24 Pick. 81; Coupal _v._ Ward, 106 Mass. 289;
Hamilton _v._ Smith, 39 Mich. 222; Smith _v._ Austin, 49 Mich. 286;
Webster _v._ Fowler, 89 Mich. 303; Cox _v._ Lauritsen, 126 Minn. 128;
Burris _v._ North, 64 Mo. 426; Renfro _v._ Prior, 22 Mo. App. 403;
Kennedy _v._ Holladay, 25 Mo. App. 503, 519; Harris _v._ Quincy R.
Co., 172 Mo. App. 261; McDonald _v._ Goddard Grocery Co., 184 Mo. App.
432; Woodman _v._ Prescott, 65 N. H. 224; Heyne _v._ Blair, 62 N. Y.
19; Miller _v._ Milligan, 48 Barb. 30; Linitzky _v._ Gorman, 146 N. Y.
Supp. 313; Dietz _v._ Langfitt, 63 Pa. St. 234; Emerson _v._ Cochran,
111 Pa. St. 619; Bartlett _v._ Brown, 6 R. I. 37; Welch _v._ Boston R.
Corp., 14 R. I. 609; Stoddard _v._ Roland, 31 S. C. 342; Kelton _v._
Bevins, Cooke, (Tenn.) 90; Evans _v._ Thompson, 12 Heisk. 534; Johnson
_v._ State, 32 Tex. Cr. 58; South Bank _v._ Suffolk Bank, 27 Vt. 505;
Waring _v._ Hudspeth, 75 Wash. 534; Bailey _v._ Gollehon, 76 W. Va.
322; Reicher _v._ Neacy, 158 Wis. 657 _Accord_.
_Definitions of probable cause_, see Gulsby _v._ Louisville R. Co.,
167 Ala. 122; Hanchey _v._ Brunson, 175 Ala. 236; Runo _v._ Williams,
162 Cal, 444; Redgate _v._ Southern R. Co., 24 Cal. App. 573; Mark
_v._ Rich, 43 App. D. C. 182; Pianco _v._ Joseph, 188 Ill. App. 555;
Schwartz _v._ Boswell, 156 Ky. 103; Indianapolis Traction Co. _v._
Henby, 178 Ind. 239; Banken _v._ Locke, 136 La. 155; Chapman _v._
Nash, 121 Md. 608; Gilecki _v._ Dolemba, 189 Mich. 107; Cox _v._
Lauritsen, 126 Minn. 128; Lammers _v._ Mason, 123 Minn. 204; Wilkerson
_v._ McGhee, 163 Mo. App. 356, 153 Mo. App. 343; Humphries _v._
Edwards, 164 N. C. 154; Cole _v._ Reece, 47 Pa. Super. Ct. 212; Waring
_v._ Hudspeth, 75 Wash. 534; Bailey _v._ Gollehon, 76 W. Va. 322.
Footnote 384:
Only the opinion of the court is given.
Footnote 385:
_Conviction reversed._—It is generally agreed that a conviction of the
defendant in the criminal proceeding, although subsequently reversed,
negatives the absence of probable cause, unless it is also made to
appear that the conviction was procured by the fraud of the instigator
of the criminal proceeding. Accordingly, a declaration alleging the
conviction and its reversal, but not alleging any such fraud, is bad
on demurrer. Reynolds _v._ Kennedy, 1 Wils. 232; Crescent Co. _v._
Butcher’s Co., 120 U. S. 141; Knight _v._ Internat. R. Co., 61 Fed.
87; Blackman _v._ West Co., 126 Fed. 252; Casey _v._ Dorr, 94 Ark.
433; Carpenter _v._ Sibley, 153 Cal. 215; Goodrich _v._ Warner, 21
Conn. 432 (_semble_); McElroy _v._ Catholic Press Co., 254 Ill. 290;
Dahlberg _v._ Grace, 178 Ill. App. 97; Adams _v._ Bicknell, 126 Ind.
210; Moffatt _v._ Fisher, 47 Ia. 473; Bowman _v._ Brown, 52 Ia. 437;
Olson _v._ Neal, 63 Ia. 214; Barber _v._ Scott, 92 Ia. 52; White _v._
International Text Book Co., 156 Ia. 210; Ross _v._ Hixon, 46 Kan.
550, 555; Spring _v._ Besore, 12 B. Mon. 551; Kaye _v._ Kean, 18 B.
Mon. 839; Duerr _v._ Ky. Co., 132 Ky. 228; Witham _v._ Gowen, 14 Me.
362; Payson _v._ Caswell, 22 Me. 212; Sidelinger _v._ Trowbridge, 113
Me. 537; Whitney _v._ Peckham, 15 Mass. 243; Dennehey _v._ Woodsum,
100 Mass. 195, 197; Phillips _v._ Kalamazoo, 53 Mich. 33 (see Spalding
_v._ Lowe, 56 Mich. 366); Boogher _v._ Hough, 99 Mo. 183; Nehr _v._
Dobbs, 47 Neb. 863; Burt _v._ Place, 4 Wend. 591; Palmer _v._ Avery,
41 Barb. 290; Francisco _v._ Schmeelk, 156 App. Div. 335; Root _v._
Rose, 6 N. D. 575; Thienes _v._ Francis, 69 Or. 165; Herman _v._
Brookerhoff, 8 Watts, 240 (_semble_); Welch _v._ Boston R. Co., 14 R.
I. 609; Hull _v._ Sprague, 23 R. I. 188; Memphis Co. _v._ Williamson,
9 Heisk. 314; Saunders _v._ Baldwin, 112 Va. 431; Topolewski _v._
Plankinton Packing Co., 143 Wis. 52. Compare Carpenter _v._ Hood, 172
Mich. 533; Platt _v._ Bonsall, 136 App. Div. 397.
As to fraudulently procured plea of guilty, see Johnson _v._ Girdwood,
7 Misc. 651; Holtman _v._ Bullock, 142 Ky. 335.
In a few jurisdictions the conviction, although set aside, is treated
as conclusive evidence of probable cause, proof of fraud in its
procurement being inadmissible. Hartshorn _v._ Smith, 104 Ga. 235;
Clements _v._ Odorless Co., 67 Md. 461, 605 (Bryan, J., diss.); Parker
_v._ Huntington, 7 Gray, 36; Griffis _v._ Sellars, 4 Dev. & B. 176.
In Virginia, on the contrary, a count alleging a conviction and its
reversal is sufficient without any allegation in regard to fraud.
Jones _v._ Finch, 84 Va. 204 (_semble_); Blanks _v._ Robinson, 1 Va.
Dec. 600; Va. L. J. (1886) 398 (overruling Womack _v._ Circle, 32
Grat. 324). See Hale _v._ Boylen, 22 W. Va. 234.
_Commitment for grand jury._—The holding of the defendant for the
grand jury is _prima facie_ evidence of probable cause. Miller _v._
Chicago Co., 41 Fed. 898; Ewing _v._ Sanford, 19 Ala. 605; Price
Mercantile Co. _v._ Cuilla, 100 Ark. 316; Ganea _v._ Southern Co., 51
Cal. 140; Diemer _v._ Herber, 75 Cal. 287; Ritchey _v._ Davis, 11 Ia.
124; Ross _v._ Hixon, 46 Kan. 550; Danzer _v._ Nathan, 145 App. Div.
448; Giesener _v._ Healy, 86 Misc. 16; Ricord _v._ Central Co., 15
Nev. 167; Ash _v._ Marlow, 20 Ohio, 119; Raleigh _v._ Cook, 60 Tex.
438; Hale _v._ Boylen, 22 W. Va. 234.
_Finding of indictment._—The finding of an indictment is _prima facie_
evidence of probable cause. Garrard _v._ Willet, 4 J. J. Marsh. 628;
Sharpe _v._ Johnston, 76 Mo. 660; Peck _v._ Chouteau, 91 Mo. 138;
Wilkerson _v._ McGhee, 153 Mo. App. 343, 163 Mo. App. 356.
_Failure of the prosecution._—The failure of the original prosecution
is in some jurisdictions regarded as _prima facie_ evidence of want of
probable cause. Miller _v._ Chicago R. Co., 41 Fed. 898; Hanchey _v._
Brunson, 175 Ala. 236; Tucker _v._ Bartlett, 97 Kan. 163; Straus _v._
Young, 36 Md. 246; Whitfield _v._ Westbrook, 40 Miss. 311; Bostick
_v._ Rutherford, 4 Hawks, 83; Downing _v._ Stone, 152 N. C. 525;
Barhigh _v._ Tammany, 158 Pa. St. 545; McKenzie _v._ Canning, 42 Utah,
529 (but compare Smith _v._ Clark, 37 Utah, 116); Jones _v._ Finch, 84
Va. 204; Waring _v._ Hudspeth, 75 Wash. 534; Saunders _v._ First Nat.
Bank, 85 Wash. 125; Brady _v._ Stiltner, 40 W. Va. 289; Fetty _v._
Huntington Loan Co., 70 W. Va. 688; Winn _v._ Peckham, 42 Wis. 493;
Lawrence _v._ Cleary, 88 Wis. 473; Manz _v._ Klippel, 158 Wis. 557. In
others there is no such presumption. Incledon _v._ Berry, 1 Camp. 203
n; Stewart _v._ Sonneborn, 98 U. S. 187, 195; Thompson _v._ Beacon
Co., 56 Conn. 493; Plummer _v._ Collins, 1 Boyce, 281; Skidmore _v._
Bricker, 77 Ill. 164; Bitting _v._ Ten Eyck, 82 Ind. 421; Prine _v._
Singer Machine Co., 176 Mich. 300; Williams _v._ Vanmeter, 8 Mo. 339;
Boeger _v._ Langenberg, 97 Mo. 390; Eckerle _v._ Higgins, 159 Mo. App.
177 (distinguishing nol. pros. and discharge on preliminary
examination—see also Smith _v._ Glynn, (Mo.) 144 S. W. 149); Harris
_v._ Quincy R. Co., 172 Mo. App. 261; Scott _v._ Simpson, 1 Sandf.
601; Central Light Co. _v._ Tyron, 42 Okl. 86; Eastman _v._ Monastes,
32 Or. 291; Bekkeland _v._ Lyons, 96 Tex. 255; McIntosh _v._ Wales, 21
Wyo. 397. See also Grorud _v._ Lossl, 48 Mont. 274.
Order vacating attachment as _prima facie_ evidence of want of
probable cause in action for malicious attachment, see Petruschke _v._
Kamerer, 131 Minn. 320.
Footnote 386:
The statement of the evidence, the argument for the defendant, and the
concurring opinion of HOLROYD, J., are omitted.
Footnote 387:
Snow _v._ Allen, 1 Stark. 502; Abrath _v._ North Eastern Co., 11 Q. B.
Div. 440, 11 App. Cas. 247; Scougall _v._ Stapleton, 12 Ont. 206;
Stewart _v._ Sonneborn, 98 U. S. 187; Blunt _v._ Little, 3 Mason, 102;
Cuthbert _v._ Galloway, 35 Fed. 466 (_semble_); Miller _v._ Chicago
Co., 41 Fed. 898; Coggswell _v._ Bohn, 43 Fed. 411; Staunton _v._
Goshorn, 94 Fed. 52; McLeod _v._ McLeod, 73 Ala. 42; Jordan _v._
Alabama Co., 81 Ala. 220; Lemay _v._ Williams, 32 Ark. 166; Bliss _v._
Wyman, 7 Cal. 257; Jones _v._ Jones, 71 Cal. 89; Brooks _v._ Bradford,
4 Col. App. 410; Mark _v._ Rich, 43 App. D. C. 182; Joiner _v._ Ocean
Co., 86 Ga. 238; Baker _v._ Langley, 3 Ga. App. 751; Ross _v._ Innis,
26 Ill. 259; Ames _v._ Snider, 69 Ill. 376; Barrett _v._ Spaids, 70
Ill. 408; Brown _v._ Smith, 83 Ill. 291; Roy _v._ Goings, 112 Ill.
656; Aldridge _v._ Churchill, 28 Ind. 62; Paddock _v._ Watts, 116 Ind.
146; Adams _v._ Bicknell, 126 Ind. 210; Mesher _v._ Iddings, 72 Ia.
553; Schippel _v._ Norton, 38 Kan. 567; Dyer _v._ Singer Machine Co.,
164 Ky. 538; Carrigan _v._ Graham, 166 Ky. 333; Stevens _v._ Fassett,
27 Me. 266; Soule _v._ Winslow, 66 Me. 447; Cooper _v._ Utterbach, 37
Md. 282; Hyde _v._ Greuch, 62 Md. 577; Torsch _v._ Dell, 88 Md. 459;
Stone _v._ Swift, 4 Pick. 389; Monaghan _v._ Cox, 155 Mass. 487;
Stanton _v._ Hart, 27 Mich. 539; Perry _v._ Sulier, 92 Mich. 72; Moore
_v._ Northern Co., 37 Minn. 147; Boyd _v._ Mendenhall, 53 Minn. 274;
Alexander _v._ Harrison, 38 Mo. 258; Burris _v._ North, 64 Mo. 426;
Whitfield _v._ Westbrook, 40 Miss. 311; Grorud _v._ Lossl, 48 Mont.
274; Jonasen _v._ Kennedy, 39 Neb. 313; Magowan _v._ Rickey, 64 N. J.
Law, 402; Hall _v._ Suydam, 6 Barb. 83; Richardson _v._ Virtue, 2 Hun,
208; Turner _v._ Dinnegar, 20 Hun, 465; Beal _v._ Robeson, 8 Ired.
276; Ash _v._ Marlow, 20 Ohio, 119; El Reno Gas Co. _v._ Spurgeon, 30
Okl. 88; Sims _v._ Jay, 53 Okl. 183; Walter _v._ Sample, 25 Pa. St.
275; Smith _v._ Walter, 125 Pa. St. 453; Bartlett _v._ Brown, 6 R. I.
37; Jackson _v._ Bell, 5 S. D. 257; Kendrick _v._ Cypert, 10 Humph.
291; St. Johnsbury Co. _v._ Hunt, 59 Vt. 294; Forbes _v._ Hagman, 75
Va. 168; Saunders _v._ Baldwin, 112 Va. 431; Hightower _v._ Union
Trust Co., 88 Wash. 179; Sutton _v._ McConnell, 46 Wis. 269; Manz _v._
Klippel, 158 Wis. 557 _Accord_.
But see Brewer _v._ Jacobs, 22 Fed. 217; Stewart _v._ Mulligan, 11 Ga.
App. 660; Smith _v._ Glynn, (Mo.) 144 S. W. 149; Downing _v._ Stone,
152 N. C. 525; Ramsey _v._ Arrott, 64 Tex. 320; Glasgow _v._ Owen, 69
Tex. 167; Shannon _v._ Jones, 76 Tex. 141; Tiedeman’s Note, 21 Am. L.
Reg. N. S. 582.
The advice must be that of a lawyer, and not a layman. Murphy _v._
Larson, 77 Ill. 172; McCullough _v._ Rice, 59 Ind. 580; Olmstead _v._
Partridge, 16 Gray, 381; Beal _v._ Robeson, 8 Ired. 276. Even though
the layman be a justice of the peace. Stephens _v._ Gravit, 136 Ky.
479; Coleman _v._ Heurich, 2 Mack. 189; Straus _v._ Young, 36 Md. 246;
Monaghan _v._ Cox, 155 Mass. 487 (_semble_); Gee _v._ Culver, 12 Or.
228; Brobst _v._ Ruff, 100 Pa. St. 91; Sutton _v._ McConnell, 46 Wis.
269. But see Ball _v._ Rawles, 93 Cal. 222; Sisk _v._ Hurst, 1 W. Va.
53. Compare Marks _v._ Hastings, 101 Ala. 165.
The lawyer must have no personal interest in the controversy. Smith
_v._ King, 62 Conn. 515; White _v._ Carr, 71 Me. 555.
In Hazzard _v._ Flury, 120 N. Y. 223, the Court of Appeals held that
mistaken advice of counsel upon a point of law would not justify the
client, since every one is presumed to know the law. Surely that
much-abused fiction has seldom been so glaringly perverted in behalf
of injustice. See Singer Machine Co. _v._ Dyer, 156 Ky. 156.
Footnote 388:
Vann _v._ McCreary, 77 Cal. 434; Boyd _v._ Mendenhall, 53 Minn. 274;
Acton _v._ Coffman, 74 Ia. 17; Johnson _v._ Miller, 82 Ia. 693; Sharpe
_v._ Johnston, 76 Mo. 660; Ames _v._ Rathbun, 37 How. Pr. 289; Laird
_v._ Taylor, 66 Barb. 139; Davenport _v._ Lynch, 6 Jones, (N. C.) 545;
Powell _v._ Woodbury, 85 Vt. 504 _Accord_.
_Withholding facts from or unfairstatement to counsel._ Fowlkes _v._
Lewis, 10 Ala. App. 543; Rothschach _v._ Diven, 97 Kan. 38;
Indianapolis Traction Co. _v._ Henby, 178 Ind. 239; Lammers _v._
Mason, 123 Minn. 204; Bowers _v._ Walker, 192 Mo. App. 230; Lathrop
_v._ Mathers, 143 App. Div. 376; Baer _v._ Chambers, 67 Wash. 357;
Rogers _v._ Van Eps, 143 Wis. 396; Boyer _v._ Bugher, 19 Wyo. 463.
_Must state facts which might have been ascertained with reasonable
diligence._ Weddington _v._ White, 148 Ky. 671; Virtue _v._ Creamery
Mfg. Co., 123 Minn. 17; Duffy _v._ Scheerger, 91 Neb. 511.
_Contra_—enough to make full and fair disclosure of known facts, Roby
_v._ Smith, 40 Okl. 280.
Footnote 389:
The statement of facts is taken from 3 L. J. K. B. N. S. 35. The
arguments of counsel and the concurring opinions of Patteson and
Taunton, JJ., are omitted.
Footnote 390:
Willans _v._ Taylor, 6 Bing. 183; Busst _v._ Gibbons, 30 L. J. Ex. N.
S. 75; Brown _v._ Hawkes, [1891] 2 Q. B. 718; Stewart _v._ Sonneborn,
98 U. S. 187; Brown _v._ Selfridge, 224 U. S. 189; Sanders _v._
Palmer, 55 Fed. 217; Staunton _v._ Goshorn, 94 Fed. 52; Gulsby _v._
Louisville R. Co., 167 Ala. 122; Louisville R. Co. _v._ Stephenson, 6
Ala. App. 578; Ball _v._ Rawles, 93 Cal. 222; Johnson _v._ Southern R.
Co., 157 Cal. 333; Smith _v._ King, 62 Conn. 515; Carroll _v._ Perry,
43 App. D. C. 363; Boyd _v._ Mendenhall, 53 Minn. 274; Helwig _v._
Beckner, 149 Ind. 131; Indianapolis Traction Co. _v._ Henby, 178 Ind.
239; Lawrence _v._ Leathers, 31 Ind. App. 414; Henderson _v._
McGruder, 49 Ind. App. 682; Atchison Co. _v._ Allen, 70 Kan. 743;
Michael _v._ Matson, 81 Kan. 360; Metrop. Co. _v._ Miller, 114 Ky.
754; Moser _v._ Fable, 164 Ky. 517; Medcalfe _v._ Brooklyn Co., 45 Md.
198; Thelin _v._ Dorsey, 59 Md. 539; Campbell _v._ Baltimore R. Co.,
97 Md. 341; Bishop _v._ Frantz, 125 Md. 183; Good _v._ French, 115
Mass. 201; Bartlett _v._ Hawley, 38 Minn. 308; Shafer _v._ Hertzig, 92
Minn. 171; Williams _v._ Pullman Co., 129 Minn. 97; Harris _v._ Quincy
R. Co., 172 Mo. App. 261; McNulty _v._ Walker, 64 Miss. 198; Cohn _v._
Saidel, 71 N. H. 558; Magowan _v._ Rickey, 64 N. J. Law, 402; Hartdorn
_v._ Webb Mfg. Co., (N. J.) 75 Atl. 893; Heyne _v._ Blair, 62 N. Y.
19; Fagnan _v._ Knox, 66 N. Y. 525; Anderson _v._ How, 116 N. Y. 336;
L. I. Union _v._ Seitz, 180 N. Y. 243; Viele _v._ Gray, 10 Abb. Pr. 1;
McCarthy _v._ Barrett, 144 App. Div. 727; Galley _v._ Brennan, 156
App. Div. 443; Stanford _v._ Grocery Co., 143 N. C. 419; Humphries
_v._ Edwards, 164 N. C. 154; Dunnington _v._ Loeser, (Okl.) 149 Pac.
1161; Leahey _v._ March, 155 Pa. St. 458; Roessing _v._ Pittsburgh R.
Co., 226 Pa. St. 523; McCoy _v._ Kalbach, 242 Pa. St. 123; Cooper _v._
Flemming, 114 Tenn. 40; Landa _v._ Obert, 45 Tex. 539; Finigan _v._
Sullivan, 65 Wash. 625; Bailey _v._ Gollehon, 76 W. Va. 322 _Accord_.
But see Wilson _v._ Thurlow, 156 Ia. 656; Griffin _v._ Dearborn, 210
Mass. 308.
Footnote 391:
Abrath _v._ North Eastern Co., 11 Q. B. Div. 440, 448, 455; Wiggin
_v._ Coffin, 3 Story, 1; Johnson _v._ Ebberts, 11 Fed. 129, 6 Sawy.
538, S. C.; Brewer _v._ Jacobs, 22 Fed. 217; Gulsby _v._ Louisville R.
Co., 167 Ala. 122; Hammond _v._ Rowley, 86 Conn. 6; Coleman _v._
Allen, 79 Ga. 637; South Western Co. _v._ Mitchell, 80 Ga. 438;
Stewart _v._ Mulligan, 11 Ga. App. 660; McElroy _v._ Catholic Press
Co., 254 Ill. 290; White _v._ International Text Book Co., 156 Ia.
210; Foltz _v._ Buck, 89 Kan. 381; Metrop. Co. _v._ Miller, 114 Ky.
754; Pullen _v._ Glidden, 66 Me. 202; Wills _v._ Noyes, 12 Pick. 324;
Mitchell _v._ Wall, 111 Mass. 492; Ross _v._ Langworthy, 13 Neb. 492;
Callahan _v._ Kelso, 170 Mo. App. 338; Gee _v._ Culver, 13 Or. 598;
Squires _v._ Job, 50 Pa. Super. Ct. 289; Culberston _v._ Cabeen, 29
Tex. 247, 256; Sebastian _v._ Cheney, (Texas) 24 S. W. 970; Barron
_v._ Mason, 31 Vt. 189, 198; Forbes _v._ Hagman, 75 Va. 168; Spear
_v._ Hiles, 67 Wis. 350; Boyer _v._ Bugher, 19 Wyo. 463 _Accord_.
In Abrath _v._ North Eastern Co., _supra_, malice was defined by
Brett, M. R., p. 448, as “a malicious intention in the mind of the
defendant, that is, not with the mere intention of carrying the law
into effect,” and by Bowen, L. J., as “a malicious spirit, that is, an
indirect and improper motive, and not in furtherance of justice.” See
also especially Pullen _v._ Glidden, and Johnson _v._ Ebberts, cited
_supra_ in this note; Magowan _v._ Rickey, 64 N. J. Law, 402; Peterson
_v._ Reisdorph, 49 Neb. 529; Nobb _v._ White, 103 Ia. 352; Brooks _v._
Bradford, 4 Col. App. 410; Jackson _v._ Bell, 5 S. D. 257.
_Definitions of “malice”_ in this connection, see Fowlkes _v._ Lewis,
10 Ala. App. 543; Redgate _v._ Southern R. Co., 24 Cal. App. 573;
Cincinnati R. Co. _v._ Cecil, 164 Ky. 377; Lammers _v._ Mason, 123
Minn. 204; Downing _v._ Stone, 152 N. C. 525; Wright _v._ Harris, 160
N. C. 542.
Footnote 392:
Farmer _v._ Darling, 4 Burr. 1971; Busst _v._ Gibbons, 30 L. J. Ex. N.
S. 75; Coulter _v._ Dublin Co., 60 L. T. 180; Hicks _v._ Faulkner, 46
L. T. Rep. 127 (affirming S. C. 8 Q. B. D. 167); Wheeler _v._ Nesbitt,
24 How. 544; Stewart _v._ Sonneborn, 98 U. S. 191; Wiggin _v._ Coffin,
3 Story, 1; Burnap _v._ Albert, Taney, 244; Benson v. McCoy, 36 Ala.
710; Lunsford _v._ Dietrich, 93 Ala. 565; Bozeman _v._ Shaw, 37 Ark.
160; Levy _v._ Brannan, 39 Cal. 485; Harkrader _v._ Moore, 44 Cal.
144; Porter v. White, 5 Mackey, 180; Harpham _v._ Whitney, 77 Ill. 32;
Krug _v._ Ward, 77 Ill. 603; Boyd _v._ Mendenhall, 53 Minn. 274;
Frankfurter _v._ Bryan, 12 Ill. App. 549; Gardiner _v._ Mays, 24 Ill.
App. 286; Newell _v._ Downs, 8 Blackf. 523; Oliver _v._ Pate, 43 Ind.
132; Ritchey _v._ Davis, 11 Ia. 124; Atchison Co. _v._ Watson, 37 Kan.
773; Gourgues _v._ Howard, 27 La. Ann. 339; Humphries _v._ Parker, 52
Me. 502; Medcalfe _v._ Brooklyn Co., 45 Md. 198; Mitchell _v._ Wall,
111 Mass. 492; Bartlett _v._ Hawley, 38 Minn. 308; Greenwade _v._
Mills, 31 Miss. 464; Sharpe _v._ Johnston, 59 Mo. 557; Finley _v._ St.
Louis Co., 99 Mo. 559; March _v._ Vandiver, 181 Mo. App. 281; McKown
_v._ Hunter, 30 N. Y. 625; Farnam _v._ Feeley, 56 N. Y. 451; Heyne
_v._ Blair, 62 N. Y. 19; Thompson _v._ Lumley, 50 How. Pr. 105;
Voorhes _v._ Leonard, 1 Th. & C. 148; Johnson _v._ Chambers, 10 Ired.
287; Gee _v._ Culver, 12 Or. 228, 13 Or. 598; Schofield _v._ Ferrers,
47 Pa. St. 194; Dietz _v._ Langfitt, 63 Pa. St. 234; Gilliford _v._
Windel, 108 Pa. St. 142; Bell _v._ Graham, 1 N. & M’C. 278; Campbell
_v._ O’Bryan, 9 Rich. 204; Willis _v._ Knox, 5 S. C. 474; Caldwell
_v._ Bennett, 22 S. C. 1; Evans _v._ Thompson, 12 Heisk. 534; Stansell
_v._ Cleveland, 64 Tex. 660; Shannon _v._ Jones, 76 Tex. 141; Barron
_v._ Mason, 31 Vt. 189; Carleton _v._ Taylor, 50 Vt. 220; Scott _v._
Shelor, 28 Grat. 891; Forbes _v._ Hagman, 75 Va. 168 _Accord_.
But see, _contra_, Wilson _v._ Bowen, 64 Mich. 133.
Footnote 393:
The statement of facts and the argument for the defendant are
abridged; the concurring opinions of Coleridge, Wightman, and Erie,
JJ., are omitted.
Footnote 394:
In Exch. Ch. 1 T. R. 510, reversing the judgment of the Court of
Exchequer in Sutton _v._ Johnstone, 1 T. R. 493. Judgment of Exch. Ch.
affirmed on error, in Dom. Proc. 1 T. R. 784. S. C. 1 Bro. P. C. 76
(2d ed.).
Footnote 395:
1 T. R. 545.
Footnote 396:
The case alluded to is perhaps Broad _v._ Ham, 5 B. N. C. 722. By the
report of S. C. in 8 Scott, 40, the cause appears to have been tried
before Maule, B. (Reporter’s note.)
Footnote 397:
Broad _v._ Ham, 5 B. N. C. 722; Turner _v._ Ambler, 10 Q. B. 252;
Roret _v._ Lewis, 5 D. & L. 371; Hinton _v._ Heather, 14 M. & W. 131;
Williams _v._ Banks, 1 F. & F. 557; Chatfield _v._ Comerford, 4 F. &
F. 1008; Shrosbery _v._ Osmaston, 37 L. T. Rep. 792; Steed _v._
Knowles, 79 Ala. 446; Harkrader _v._ Moore, 44 Cal. 144; Ball _v._
Rawles, 93 Cal. 222; Galloway _v._ Stewart, 49 Ind. 156; Donnelly _v._
Burkett, 75 Ia. 613; Humphries _v._ Parker, 52 Me. 502, 505; Mitchell
_v._ Wall, 111 Mass. 492; Bartlett _v._ Hawley, 38 Minn. 308; Peck
_v._ Chouteau, 91 Mo. 138; Chicago Co. _v._ Kriski, 30 Neb. 215;
Howard _v._ Thompson, 21 Wend. 319; Burlingame _v._ Burlingame, 8 Cow.
141; Fagnan _v._ Knox, 66 N. Y. 525; Anderson _v._ How, 116 N. Y. 336;
Wass _v._ Stephens, 128 N. Y. 123; Wilson _v._ King, 39 N. Y. Super.
Ct. 384; Linitzky _v._ Gorman, 146 N. Y. Supp. 313; Thienes _v._
Francis, 69 Or. 165; King _v._ Colvin, 11 R. I. 582; Scott _v._
Shelor, 28 Grat. 891; Forbes _v._ Hagman, 75 Va. 168; Spear _v._
Hiles, 67 Wis. 350; Baker _v._ Kilpatrick, 7 Br. Col. L. R. 150;
Harcourt _v._ Aiken, 22 N. Zeal. L. R. 389; Clift _v._ Birmingham, 4
W. Aust. L. R. 20 _Accord_.
Footnote 398:
Only the opinion of the court is given.
Footnote 399:
Brown _v._ Hawkes, [1891] 2 Q. B. 718; Grant _v._ Book, 25 Nova
Scotia, 266 _Accord_.
_Malice may be inferred from want of probable cause._ Hanchey _v._
Brunson, 175 Ala. 236; Hawkins _v._ Collins, 5 Ala. App. 522; Fowlkes
_v._ Lewis, 10 Ala. App. 543; Price _v._ Morris, 122 Ark. 382; Redgate
_v._ Southern R. Co., 24 Cal. App. 573; Stewart _v._ Mulligan, 11 Ga.
App. 660; Holliday _v._ Coleman, 12 Ga. App. 779; McElroy _v._
Catholic Press Co., 254 Ill. 290; Pontius _v._ Kimball, 56 Ind. App.
144; Singer Machine Co. _v._ Dyer, 156 Ky. 156; Mertens _v._ Mueller,
119 Md. 525; Griffin _v._ Dearborn, 210 Mass. 308; Moscob _v._ Frank
Ridlon Co., 216 Mass. 193; Krzyszke _v._ Kamin, 163 Mich. 290; Bowers
_v._ Walker, 192 Mo. App. 230; Grorud _v._ Lossl, 48 Mont. 274; Galley
_v._ Brennan, 156 App. Div. 443; Kellogg _v._ Ford, 70 Or. 213; Cole
_v._ Reece, 47 Pa. Super. Ct. 212; Keener _v._ Jeffries, 54 Pa. Super.
Ct. 553; Tufshinsky _v._ Pittsburgh R. Co., 61 Pa. Super. Ct. 121;
Fetty _v._ Huntington Loan Co., 70 W. Va. 688.
It is not a necessary inference. Hanowitz _v._ Great Northern R. Co.,
122 Minn. 241; Smith _v._ Glynn, (Mo.) 144 S. W. 149; Chicago R. Co.
_v._ Holliday, 30 Okl. 680; Boyer _v._ Bugher, 19 Wyo. 463.
It is not inferred from failure to prosecute, Malloy _v._ Chicago R.
Co., 34 S. D. 330, nor from discharge or acquittal. Waring _v._
Hudspeth, 75 Wash. 534.
_Want of probable cause is not to be inferred from malice._ Runo _v._
Williams, 162 Cal. 444; Redgate _v._ Southern R. Co., 24 Cal. App.
573; Plummer _v._ Collins, 1 Boyce, 281; McElroy _v._ Catholic Press
Co., 254 Ill. 290; Shadden _v._ Butler, 164 Ia. 1; Hudson _v._ Nolen,
142 Ky. 824; Chapman _v._ Nash, 121 Md. 608; Griffin _v._ Dearborn,
210 Mass. 308; Callahan _v._ Kelso, 170 Mo. App. 338; Motsinger _v._
Sink, 168 N. C. 548; Kellogg _v._ Ford, 70 Or. 213; McCoy _v._
Kalbach, 242 Pa. St. 123; Boyer _v._ Bugher, 19 Wyo. 463; McIntosh
_v._ Wales, 21 Wyo. 397. But see Squires _v._ Job, 50 Pa. Super. Ct.
289.
Footnote 400:
Only a portion of the opinion is given.
Footnote 401:
Whitehurst _v._ Ward, 12 Ala. 264; Shannon _v._ Simms, 146 Ala. 673;
Whipple _v._ Gorsuch, 82 Ark. 252; Adams _v._ Lisher, 3 Blackf. 241;
Bruley _v._ Rose, 57 Ia. 651; Parkhurst _v._ Masteller, 57 Ia. 474;
White _v._ International Text Book Co., 156 Ia. 210; Lancaster _v._
McKay, 103 Ky. 616, 624; Bacon _v._ Towne, 4 Cush. 217, 241; Threefoot
_v._ Nuckols, 68 Miss. 116; Morris _v._ Corson, 7 Cow. 281; Turner
_v._ Dinnegar, 20 Hun, 465; Bell _v._ Pearcy, 5 Ired. 83; Johnson _v._
Chambers, 10 Ired. 287; Thurber _v._ Eastern Ass’n, 118 N. C. 129
_Accord_. See Indianapolis Traction Co. _v._ Henby, 178 Ind. 239.
Footnote 402:
Watson _v._ Norbury, Sty. 3, 201; Brown _v._ Chapman, 1 W. Bl. 427;
Cotton _v._ James, 1 B. & Ad. 128; Whitworth _v._ Hall, 2 B. & Ad.
695; Hay _v._ Weakley, 5 Car. & P. 361; Farley _v._ Danks, 4 E. & B.
493; Johnson _v._ Emerson, L. R. 6 Ex. 329; Metropolitan Bank _v._
Pooley, 10 App. Cas. 210; Stewart _v._ Sonneborn, 98 U. S. 187;
Wilkinson _v._ Goodfellow Co., 141 Fed. 218; McDonald _v._ Goddard
Grocery Co., 184 Mo. App. 432; Lawton _v._ Green, 5 Hun, 157; Cohen
_v._ Nathaniel Fisher & Co., 135 App. Div. 238; King _v._ Sullivan,
(Tex. Civ. App.) 92 S. W. 51; Carleton _v._ Taylor, 50 Vt. 220
(_semble_) _Accord_.
Similarly an action will lie without proof of special damage for a
malicious and unfounded presentation of a petition to wind up a
trading company. Quartz Co. _v._ Eyre, 11 Q. B. Div. 674; Wyatt _v._
Palmer, [1899] 2 Q. B. 106 (_semble_).
_Malicious inquisition of lunacy_, see Lockenour _v._ Sides, 57 Ind.
360; Dordoni _v._ Smith, 82 N. J. Law, 525.
_Malicious proceeding for suspension or removal of an officer._ Fulton
_v._ Ingalls, 165 App. Div. 323.
_Malicious prosecution of unfounded claim for a patent._ Strelitzer
_v._ Schnaier, 135 App. Div. 384.
Footnote 403:
The arguments of counsel are omitted.
Footnote 404:
_Malicious arrest on civil process._ Stribler _v._ Jones, 1 Lev. 276;
Daw _v._ Swain, 1 Sid. 424; Parker _v._ Langley, Gilb. 163, 10 Mod.
209, S. C.; Goslin _v._ Wilcock, 2 Wils. 302; Sinclair _v._ Eldred, 4
Taunt. 7; Pierce _v._ Street, 3 B. & Ad. 397; Cozer _v._ Pilling, 4 B.
& C. 26; Saxon _v._ Castle, 6 A. & E. 652; Roret _v._ Lewis, 5 D. & L.
371; Medina _v._ Grove, 10 Q. B. 152; Daniels _v._ Fielding, 16 M. &
W. 200 (_semble_, see Clerk & Lindsell, Torts, 5 ed. 683); Moore _v._
Guardner, 16 M. & W. 595 (_semble_); Ross _v._ Norman, 5 Ex. 359;
Ventress _v._ Rosser, 73 Ga. 534; Joiner _v._ Ocean Co., 86 Ga. 238;
Cardival _v._ Smith, 109 Mass. 158; Hamilburgh _v._ Shepard, 119 Mass.
30; Cotter _v._ Nathan & Hurst Co., 218 Mass. 315; Stanfield _v._
Phillips, 78 Pa. St. 73; Emerson _v._ Cochran, 111 Pa. St. 619; Ward
_v._ Sutor, 70 Tex. 343.
_Malicious holding to bail._ Steer _v._ Scoble, Cro. Jac. 667; Berry
_v._ Adamson, 6 B. & C. 528; Small _v._ Gray, 2 Car. & P. 605.
_Malicious seizure of property on civil process._ Sanders _v._ Powell,
1 Lev. 129, 1 Sid. 183, 1 Keb. 603, S. C.; Craig _v._ Hasell, 4 Q. B.
481; Medina _v._ Grove, 10 Q. B. 152; Redway _v._ McAndrew, L. R. 9 Q.
B. 74; Kirksey _v._ Jones, 7 Ala. 622; Vesper _v._ Crane Co., 165 Cal.
36; Juchter _v._ Boehm, 67 Ga. 534; Wilcox _v._ McKenzie, 75 Ga. 73;
Lawrence _v._ Hagerman, 56 Ill. 68; Spaids _v._ Barrett, 57 Ill. 289;
Western Co. _v._ Wilmarth, 33 Kan. 510; Wills _v._ Noyes, 12 Pick.
324; Savage _v._ Brewer, 16 Pick. 453; O’Brien _v._ Barry, 106 Mass.
300; Bobsin _v._ Kingsbury, 138 Mass. 538; Grant _v._ Reinhart, 33 Mo.
App. 74; Smith _v._ Smith, 56 How. Pr. 316; Jaksich _v._ Guisti, 36
Nev. 104; Tyler _v._ Mahoney, 166 N. C. 509; Fortman _v._ Rottier, 8
Ohio St. 548; Sommer _v._ Wilt, 4 S. & R. 19; Mayer _v._ Walter, 64
Pa. St. 283.
_Malicious replevin._ O’Brien _v._ Barry, 106 Mass. 300; McPherson
_v._ Runyon, 41 Minn. 524; Martin _v._ Rexford, 170 N. C. 540.
_Malicious issue of an injunction._ Munce _v._ Black, 7 Ir. C. L. R.
475; McFarlane _v._ Garrett, 3 Pennewill, 36; Landis _v._ Wolf, 206
Ill. 392; Krzyszke _v._ Kamin, 163 Mich. 290; Manlove _v._ Vick, 55
Miss. 567; Burt _v._ Smith, 84 App. Div. 47; Coal Co. _v._ Upson, 40
Ohio St. 17; Hess _v._ German Co., 37 Or. 297; Batson _v._ Paris Co.,
73 S. C. 368; Powell _v._ Woodbury, 85 Vt. 504; Williams _v._
Ainsworth, 121 Wis. 600 (_semble_).
_Malicious procurement of the execution of a search warrant._ Cooper
_v._ Booth, 3 Esp. 135, S. C. 1 T. R. 535 (_cited_); Elsee _v._ Smith,
2 Chit. R. 304, 1 D. & R. 97, S. C.; Wyatt _v._ White, 29 L. J. Ex.
193; Carey _v._ Sheets, 60 Ind. 17, 67 Ind. 375; Whitson _v._ May, 71
Ind. 269; Olson _v._ Tvete, 46 Minn. 225; Miller _v._ Brown, 3 Mo. 94;
Boeger _v._ Langenberg, 97 Mo. 390.
_Malicious garnishment._ King _v._ Yarbray, 136 Ga. 212; Lopes _v._
Connolly, 210 Mass. 487.
_Levy of execution under fraudulent judgment._ Atlanta Ice Co. _v._
Reeves, 136 Ga. 294.
See also Hope _v._ Evered, 17 Q. B. Div. 338; Lea _v._ Charrington, 23
Q. B. Div. 45; Utting _v._ Berney, 5 T. L. Rep. 39.
Footnote 405:
Only the opinion of the court on this point is given.
Footnote 406:
Savile _v._ Roberts, 1 Ld. Ray. 374; Purton _v._ Honnor, 1 B. & P.
205; Cotterell _v._ Jones, 11 C. B. 713; Quartz Co. _v._ Eyre, 11 Q.
B. Div. 674; Ray _v._ Law, Pet. C. C. 207; Tamblyn _v._ Johnston, 126
Fed. 267, 270; Mitchell _v._ South Western Co., 75 Ga. 398 (but see
Slater _v._ Kimbro, 91 Ga. 217); Smith _v._ Mich. Co., 175 Ill. 619;
Bonney _v._ King, 201 Ill. 47; McCormick _v._ Weber, 187 Ill. App.
290; Smith _v._ Hintrager, 67 Ia. 109; Cattle Co. _v._ Nat. Bank, 127
Ia. 153, 158; White _v._ International Text Book Co., 156 Ia. 310;
Cade _v._ Yocum, 8 La. Ann. 477; McNamee _v._ Mink, 49 Md. 122; Sup.
Lodge _v._ Unverzagt, 76 Md. 104 (see Clements _v._ Odorless Co., 67
Md. 461); Woodmansie _v._ Logan, 1 Penningt. 93; Potts _v._ Imlay, 1
South. 330; State _v._ Meyer, 40 N. J. Law, 252; Ely _v._ Davis, 111
N. C. 24 (_semble_); Terry _v._ Davis, 114 N. C. 31; Carpenter _v._
Hanes, 167 N. C. 551; Cincinnati Co. _v._ Bruck, 61 Ohio St. 489
(explaining Pope _v._ Pollock, 46 Ohio St. 367); Kramer _v._ Stock, 10
Watts, 115; Mayer _v._ Walter, 64 Pa. St. 283; Muldoon _v._ Rickey,
103 Pa. St. 110; Emerson _v._ Cochran, 111 Pa. St. 619, 622; Michell
_v._ Donanski, 28 R. I. 94, 97 (_semble_); Smith _v._ Adams, 27 Tex.
28; Johnson _v._ King, 64 Tex. 226; Nowotny _v._ Grona, 44 Tex. Civ.
App. 325; J. Calisher Co. _v._ Bloch, (Tex. Civ. App.) 147 S. W. 683;
Abbott _v._ Thorne, 34 Wash. 692; Luby _v._ Bennett, 111 Wis. 613
(_semble_); Cross _v._ Comm. Agency, 18 N. Zeal. L. R. 153 _Accord_.
Burnap _v._ Albert, Taney, 244; Cooper _v._ Armour, 42 Fed 215, 217;
Wade _v._ Nat. Bank, 114 Fed. 377; Eastin _v._ Stockton Bank, 66 Cal.
123; Berson _v._ Ewing, 84 Cal. 89; Hoyt _v._ Macon, 2 Col. 113
(_semble_); Whipple _v._ Fuller, 11 Conn. 582; Wall _v._ Toomey, 52
Conn. 35; Payne _v._ Donegan, 9 Ill. App. 566 (_semble_); Lockenour
_v._ Sides, 57 Ind. 360; McCardle _v._ McGinley, 86 Ind. 538;
Whitesell _v._ Study, 37 Ind. App. 429; Marbourg _v._ Smith, 11 Kan.
554; Cox _v._ Taylor, 10 B. Mon. 17; Woods _v._ Finnell, 13 Bush. 628;
Johnson _v._ Meyer, 36 La. Ann. 333 (_semble_); Allen _v._ Codman, 139
Mass. 136 (_semble_); Wilson _v._ Hale, 178 Mass. 111; Brand _v._
Hinchman, 68 Mich. 590; Antcliff _v._ June, 81 Mich. 477; McPherson
_v._ Runyon, 41 Minn. 524; O’Neill _v._ Johnson, 53 Minn. 439;
Eickhoff _v._ Fidelity Co., 74 Minn. 139; Virtue _v._ Creamery Mfg.
Co., 123 Minn. 17; Brown _v._ City, 90 Mo. 377 (_semble_); Smith _v._
Burrus, 106 Mo. 94; McCormick Co. _v._ Willan, 63 Neb. 391; Pangburn
_v._ Bull, 1 Wend. 345; Dempsey _v._ Lepp, 52 How. Pr. 11; Smith _v._
Smith, 20 Hun, 555 (_semble_); Willard _v._ Holmes, 21 N. Y. Supp. 998
(_semble_); (but see Willard _v._ Holmes, 142 N. Y. 492; Paul _v._
Fargo, 84 App. Div. 9); Kolka _v._ Jones, 6 N. D. 461; Sawyer _v._
Shick, 30 Okl. 353; Lipscomb _v._ Shofner, 96 Tenn. 112; Swepson _v._
Davis, 109 Tenn. 99; Closson _v._ Staples, 42 Vt. 209 _Contra_.
In Eastin _v._ Stockton Bank, _supra_, the court said: “The English
cases which deny the right to maintain the action, stand upon the
ground that the successful defendant is adequately compensated for the
damages he sustains by the costs allowed him by the statute. Those
costs, it seems, include the attorney’s charges for preparing the case
for trial in all its parts, the fees of the witnesses and the court
officials, and even the _honorarium_ of the barrister who conducted
the case in court. The reason upon which the English rule rests would
not, therefore, seem to apply here, where the costs recoverable under
the statute are confined to much narrower limits....
“Two other objections made to the maintenance of the action,—first,
the claim that if such suits are allowed, litigation will become
interminable, because every successful action will be followed by
another, alleging malice in the prosecution of the former; and second,
that if the defendant may sue for damages sustained by an unfounded
prosecution, the plaintiff may equally bring an action when the
defendant makes a groundless defence,—are well answered in the article
already alluded to [Mr. Lawson’s note, 21 A. L. Reg. N. S. 281, 353]:
‘To the first objection, it is enough to say that the action will
never lie for an unsuccessful prosecution, unless begun and carried on
with malice and without probable cause. With the burden of this
difficult proof upon him, the litigant will need a very clear case
before he will be willing to begin a suit of this character. The
second argument fails to distinguish between the position of the
parties, plaintiff and defendant, in an action at law. The plaintiff
sets the law in motion; if he does so groundlessly and maliciously he
is the cause of the defendant’s damage. But the defendant stands only
on his legal rights—the plaintiff having taken his case to court, the
defendant has the privilege of calling upon him to prove it to the
satisfaction of the judge or jury, and he is guilty of no wrong in
exercising this privilege.’”
In Doane _v._ Hescock, 155 N. Y. Supp. 210, the court (Appellate Term,
First Department) says: “It clearly appears that the complaint does
not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for abuse
of process, nor are the allegations sufficient to support an action
for malicious prosecution of a civil action in this state. There is no
allegation that the action resulted in damages to the business or
reputation of the defendant or that in any way his personal or
property rights were interfered with. The sole allegation as to damage
is the trouble, inconvenience, and expense of defending the action.
This is not sufficient. Paul _v._ Fargo, 84 App. Div. 9, 11, 13
(dissenting opinion, 21), 82 N. Y. Supp. 369; Fulton _v._ Ingalls, 165
App. Div. 323, 326, 151 N. Y. Supp. 130.”
_Malicious excessive attachment._ Tamblyn _v._ Johnston, (C. C. A.)
126 Fed. 267; Mills _v._ Larrance, 217 Ill. 446; Savage _v._ Brewer,
16 Pick. 453; Paul _v._ Fargo, 84 App. Div. 9; Sommer _v._ Wilt, 4 S.
& R. 19.
Footnote 407:
The averments of the count are abridged and the arguments of counsel
are omitted.
Footnote 408:
Fivaz _v._ Nicholls, 2 C. B. 501, 514 (_semble_); Grove _v._
Brandenburg, 7 Blackf. 234 _Accord_.
“Pechell _v._ Watson came to be considered in Flight _v._ Leman. Its
authority was recognized, but the latter case was decided against the
plaintiff, who sued for maintenance, on the ground, I own I should
have thought the narrow ground, that to instigate a suit was not
maintenance, though to support one already instituted was.” _Per_
Coleridge, C. J., in Bradlaugh _v._ Newdegate, 11 Q. B. Div. 1, 8.
See also Alabaster _v._ Harness, [1894] 2 Q. B. 897, [1895] 1 Q. B.
339; Grieg _v._ National Union, 22 T. L. Rep. 274; Goodyear Co. _v._
White, 2 N. J. Law Journ. 150, 10 Fed. Cas. 752, no. 5602; Breeden
_v._ Frankford Ins. Co., 220 Mo. 327, 373, 378–420, 424–443. Compare
Metropolitan Bank _v._ Pooley, 10 App. Cas. 210, 217–218.
Footnote 409:
Only the opinion of the Chief Justice upon the point of abuse of legal
process is given.
Footnote 410:
Heywood _v._ Collinge, 9 A. & E. 268; King _v._ Yarbray, 136 Ga. 212;
Wicker _v._ Hotchkiss, 62 Ill. 107 (_semble_); Emery _v._ Ginnan, 24
Ill. App. 65 (_semble_); Whitesell _v._ Study, 37 Ind. App. 429
(_semble_); Page _v._ Cushing, 38 Me. 523; Wood _v._ Graves, 144 Mass.
365; White _v._ Apsley Co., 181 Mass. 339; White _v._ Apsley Co., 194
Mass. 97; Malone _v._ Belcher, 216 Mass. 209; Pixley _v._ Reed, 26
Minn. 80 (_semble_); Rossiter _v._ Minn. Co., 37 Minn. 296; Bebinger
_v._ Sweet, 6 Hun, 478; Buffalo Co. _v._ Everest, 30 Hun, 586
(_semble_); Hazard _v._ Harding, 63 How. Pr. 326; Prough _v._
Entriken, 11 Pa. St. 81; Mayer _v._ Walter, 64 Pa. St. 283; Lauzon
_v._ Charroux, 18 R. I. 467 _Accord_.
As to the distinction between malicious prosecution and abuse of
process, see Waters _v._ Winn, 142 Ga. 138; Wright _v._ Harris, 160 N.
C. 542; Cooper _v._ Southern R. Co., 165 N. C. 578.
In Wood _v._ Graves, 144 Mass. 365, Allen, J., said, p. 366: “There is
no doubt that an action lies for the malicious abuse of lawful
process, civil or criminal. It is to be assumed, in such a case, that
the process was lawfully issued for a just cause, and is valid in
form, and that the arrest or other proceeding upon the process was
justifiable and proper in its inception. Perhaps the most frequent
form of such abuse is by working upon the fears of the person under
arrest for the purpose of extorting money or other property, or of
compelling him to sign some paper, to give up some claim, or to do
some other act, in accordance with the wishes of those who have
control of the prosecution. The leading case upon this subject is
Grainger _v._ Hill, 4 Bing. N. C. 212, where the owner of a vessel was
arrested on civil process, and the officer, acting under the
directions of the plaintiffs in the suit, used the process to compel
the defendant therein to give up his ship’s register, to which they
had no right. He was held entitled to recover damages, not for
maliciously putting the process in force, but for maliciously abusing
it, to effect an object not within its proper scope.”
In Mayer _v._ Walter, 64 Pa. St. 283, Sharswood, J., said: “There is a
distinction between a malicious use and a malicious abuse of legal
process. An abuse is where the party employs it for some unlawful
object, not the purpose which it is intended by the law to effect; in
other words, a perversion of it. Thus, if a man is arrested, or his
goods seized in order to extort money from him, even though it be to
pay a just claim other than that in suit, or to compel him to give up
possession of a deed or other thing of value, not the legal object of
the process, it is settled that in an action for such malicious abuse
it is not necessary to prove that the action in which the process
issued has been determined, or to aver that it was sued out without
reasonable or probable cause: Grainger _v._ Hill, 4 Bing. N. C. 212.
It is evident that when such a wrong has been perpetrated, it is
entirely immaterial whether the proceeding itself was baseless or
otherwise. We know that the law is good, but only if a man use it
lawfully.
“On the other hand, legal process, civil or criminal, may be
maliciously used so as to give rise to a cause of action where no
object is contemplated to be gained by it other than its proper effect
and execution. As every man has a legal power to prosecute his claims
in a court of law and justice, no matter by what motives of malice he
may be actuated in doing so, it is necessary in this class of cases to
aver and prove that he has acted not only maliciously, but without
reasonable or probable cause. It is clearly settled also, that the
proceeding must be determined finally before any action lies for the
injury; because, as it is said in Arundell _v._ Tregono, Yelv. 117,
the plaintiff will clear himself too soon, viz., before the fact
tried, which will be inconvenient; besides, the two determinations
might be contrary and inconsistent.”
To proceed unfairly and oppressively but without seeking to compel
another to do what he is not obliged to do, e. g., to enter up
judgment on a note after 10 P. M. and to bring immediate execution, is
not a ground of action according to Docter _v._ Riedel, 96 Wis. 158.
But see dissenting opinion of Marshall, J.
Footnote 411:
Only the opinion of the court is given.
Footnote 412:
Y. B. 7 Hen. VI. 43; 1 Roll. Ab. 101, pl. 1, S. C.; Holliday _v._
Sterling, 62 Mo. 321 _Accord_.
Footnote 413:
Edwards _v._ Wooton, 12 Rep. 35; Peacock _v._ Raynell, 2 Brownl. 151;
Barrow _v._ Lewellin, Hob. 152; Hick’s Case, Hob. 375; Rex _v._
Burdett, 4 B. & Ald. 95 _Accord_.
Footnote 414:
Phillips _v._ Jansen, 2 Esp. 624; Ward _v._ Smith, 4 Car. & P. 302;
Sharp _v._ Skues, (C. A.) 25 T. L. Rep. 336; Warnock _v._ Mitchell, 43
Fed. 428; Western Co. _v._ Cashman, 149 Fed. 367; Spaits _v._
Poundstone, 87 Ind. 522; Yousling _v._ Dare, 122 Ia. 539; Lyon _v._
Lash, 74 Kan. 745; Buckwalter _v._ Gossow, 75 Kan. 147; McIntosh _v._
Matherly, 9 B. Mon. 119; Roberts _v._ English Co., 155 Ala. 414;
Dickinson _v._ Hathaway, 122 La. 644; Gambrill _v._ Schooley, 93 Md.
48; Rumney _v._ Worthley, 186 Mass. 144, 145; Youmans _v._ Smith, 153
N. Y. 214, 218; Lyle _v._ Clason, 1 Caines, 581; Waistel _v._ Holman,
2 Hall, 172; Prescott _v._ Tousey, 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 12; Shepard
_v._ Lamphier, 84 Misc. 498; Fonville _v._ McNease, Dudley, 303; State
_v._ Syphrett, 27 S. C. 29; Fry _v._ McCord, 95 Tenn. 678; Sylvis _v._
Miller, 96 Tenn. 94; Wilcox _v._ Moon, 63 Vt. 481; Wilcox _v._ Moon,
64 Vt. 450 _Accord_.
See Ahern _v._ Maguire, A. M. & O. 39.
If two persons combine in sending a libel to the plaintiff, each is
guilty of a publication to the other. Spaits _v._ Poundstone, 87 Ind.
522, 524, 525.
In Virginia, by statute, an action lies for insulting words written or
spoken, although not read or heard by a third person. Rolland _v._
Batchelder, 84 Va. 664; Strode _v._ Clement, 90 Va. 553.
Footnote 415:
Part of the case, not relating to publication, is omitted.
Footnote 416:
Wenman _v._ Ash, 13 C. B. 836; Jones _v._ Williams, 1 T. L. Rep. 572;
Sesler _v._ Montgomery, 78 Cal. 486, 489 (_semble_); Luick _v._
Driscoll, 13 Ind. App. 279; Wilcox _v._ Moon, 63 Vt. 481; Wilcox _v._
Moon, 64 Vt. 450 _Accord_.
But a communication by the libeller to his own wife is said not to be
a publication. Wennhak _v._ Morgan, 20 Q. B. D. 635; Sesler _v._
Montgomery, 78 Cal. 486; Trumbull _v._ Gibbons, 3 City H. Rec. 97. But
see State _v._ Shoemaker, 101 N. C. 690. See also Central R. Co. _v._
Jones, 18 Ga. App. 414 (dictation by officer of corporation to
co-employee); Kirschenbaum _v._ Kaufman (N. Y. City Ct.), 50 N. Y. Law
Journ. 406 (defamatory matter uttered to business partner in course of
business). It would be more accurate to say that the communication in
such cases is privileged. In Powell _v._ Gelston, [1916] 2 K. B. 615,
a libellous letter, privileged as a communication to A, was sent to B,
who asked for the information in his own name at A’s request. The
letter was opened and read by A only.
Footnote 417:
M’Coombs _v._ Tuttle, 5 Blackf. 431; Van Cleef _v._ Lawrence, 2 City
H. Rec. 41 _Accord_.
Footnote 418:
Wyatt _v._ Gore, Holt, 299; Wenman _v._ Ash, 13 C. B. 836; Kiene _v._
Ruff, 1 Ia. 482; Allen _v._ Wortham, 89 Ky. 485; Rumney _v._ Worthley,
186 Mass. 144; Schenck _v._ Schenck, Spencer, 208; State _v._
McIntire, 115 N. C. 769; Wilcox _v._ Moon, 64 Vt. 540; Adams _v._
Lawson, 17 Gratt. 250 _Accord_.
See Fox _v._ Broderick, 14 Ir. C. L. R. 453; Callan _v._ Gaylord, 3
Watts, 321.
_Slanderous statements to plaintiff in presence of his counsel_,
Massee _v._ Williams, 207 Fed. 222.
_Sending libellous letter to plaintiff’s attorney_, Brown _v._ Elm
City Lumber Co., 167 N. C. 9.
Footnote 419:
Only the opinion of the court is given.
Footnote 420:
Jones _v._ Davers, Cro. Eliz. 496; Price _v._ Jenkings, Cro. Eliz.
865; Amann _v._ Damm, 8 C. B. N. S. 597; Kiene _v._ Ruff, 1 Ia. 42;
Hurtert _v._ Weines, 27 Ia. 134; Mielenz _v._ Quasdorf, 68 Ia. 726;
Economopoulos _v._ A. G. Pollard Co., 218 Mass. 294; Wormouth _v._
Cramer, 3 Wend. 394 _Accord_.
See Bechtell _v._ Shatter, Wright, (Ohio) 107. Conf. Anon., Moore,
182; Gibs _v._ Jenkins, Hob. 335; Zenobio _v._ Axtell, 6 T. R. 162;
Jenkins _v._ Phillips, 9 Car. & P. 766; Hickley _v._ Grosjean, 6
Blackf. 351; Keenholts _v._ Becker, 3 Den. 346; Rahauser _v._ Barth, 3
Watts, 28; Zeig _v._ Ort, 3 Chandl. 26; K. _v._ H., 20 Wis. 239;
Filber _v._ Dautermann, 26 Wis. 518; Simonsen _v._ Herald Co., 61 Wis.
626; Pelzer _v._ Benishy, 67 Wis. 291.
Footnote 421:
Anon., Sty. 70; Force _v._ Warren, 15 C. B. N. S. 806; Desmond _v._
Brown, 33 Ia. 13; Marble _v._ Chapin, 132 Mass. 225, 226; Cameron _v._
Cameron, 162 Mo. App. 110; Traylor _v._ White, 185 Mo. App. 325;
Broderick _v._ James, 3 Daly, 481 Accord.
_Mailing of post card_. Three views have been expressed as to whether
the mailing of a post card is a publication.
(1) The mailing is a publication. Sadgrove _v._ Hole, [1901] 2 K. B.
1, 4, 5 (_semble_); Logan _v._ Hodges, 146 N. C. 38; Spence _v._ Burt,
18 Lanc. L. Rev. 251; Robinson v. Jones, L. R. 4 Ir. 391 (_semble_);
McCann _v._ Edinburgh Co., L. R. 28 Ir. 24, 28 per Palles, C. B.
(2) The mailing is _prima facie_ a publication. Odgers, Libel and
Slander (4 ed.), 153, 281.
(3) The mailing is _prima facie_ not a publication, i. e., is not a
publication unless evidence is given that the post card was read _in
transitu_. Steele _v._ Edwards, 15 Ohio Cir. Ct. 52, 58.
_Publication in ignorance of the libel_. The dissemination of a libel
by a carrier or newsvender or a public library, who neither knew nor
ought to have known of the libel and who had no reason to suppose that
the newspaper was likely to contain libellous matters, gives no cause
of action. Emmens _v._ Pottle, 16 Q. B. D. 354; Martin _v._ Trustees
of British Museum, 10 T. L. Rep. 338. But the proprietor of a
circulating library was held liable for giving out a book containing
defamatory statements, because his freedom from negligence did not
appear. Vizetelly _v._ Mudie’s Library, [1900] 2 Q. B. 170. See also
Morris _v._ Ritchie, Court of Sess., March 12, 1902, 4 F. 645.
Footnote 422:
The case has been much abridged.
Footnote 423:
Phillips _v._ Bradshaw, 167 Ala. 199; Allen _v._ Fincher, 187 Ala.
599; Pouchan _v._ Godeau, 167 Cal. 692; United Mine Workers _v._
Cromer, 159 Ky. 605; Tawney _v._ Simonson, 109 Minn. 341; Sweaas _v._
Evenson, 110 Minn. 304; Vanloon _v._ Vanloon, 159 Mo. App. 255; Jones
_v._ Banner, 172 Mo. App. 132; Bigley _v._ National Fidelity Co., 94
Neb. 813; Phillips _v._ Barber, 7 Wend. 439; Church _v._ New York
Tribune Ass’n, 135 App. Div. 30; Rossiter _v._ New York Press Co., 141
App. Div. 339; Spencer _v._ Minnick, 41 Okl. 613; McGeary _v._ Leader
Pub. Co., 52 Pa. Super. Ct. 35; Lehmann _v._ Medack, (Tex. Civ. App.)
152 S. W. 438 _Accord_. Compare Marshall _v._ Chicago Herald Co., 185
Ill. App. 224; Willfred Coal Co. _v._ Sapp, 193 Ill. App. 400; Sweet
_v._ Post Pub. Co., 215 Mass. 450; Corr _v._ Sun Printing & Pub.
Ass’n, 177 N. Y. 131. But see M. _v._ J., 164 Wis. 39.
A lunatic is liable for torts generally and also for a libel. Mordaunt
_v._ Mordaunt, 39 L. J. Pr. & M. 57, 59. But it is another
illustration of the rule of the principal case that defamatory words
spoken by a lunatic whose insanity was obvious or known to all the
hearers, are not actionable. Yeates _v._ Reed, 4 Blackf. 463; Irvine
_v._ Gibson, 117 Ky. 306; Dickinson _v._ Barber, 9 Mass. 225, 227;
Bryant _v._ Jackson, 6 Humph. 199. So also of words spoken and
understood as a jest. Donoghue _v._ Hayes, Hayes, 265. Drunkenness is
no defence. Kendrick _v._ Hopkins, Cary, 133; Gates _v._ Meredith, 7
Ind. 440.
The old rule of construing defamatory statements _in mitiori sensu_
was long ago exploded. See Odgers, Libel & Slander (5 ed.), 111–113.
_Explanation of words by context_, see Deitchman _v._ Bowles, 166 Ky.
285; McCurda _v._ Lewiston Journal Co., 109 Me. 53; Wing _v._ Wing, 66
Me. 62; Larsen _v._ Brooklyn Eagle, 165 App. Div. 4; Guenther _v._
Ridgway Co., 170 App. Div. 725; Eddy _v._ Cunningham, 69 Wash. 544;
Leuch _v._ Berger, 161 Wis. 564.
Footnote 424:
Only the opinion of the court is given.
Footnote 425:
Massee _v._ Williams, (C. C. A.) 207 Fed. 222; Ivie _v._ King, 167 N.
C. 174; Olympia Waterworks _v._ Mottman, 88 Wash. 694 _Accord_. See
_Ex parte_ Nelson, 251 Mo. 63.
Footnote 426:
A portion of the opinion is omitted.
Footnote 427:
The article was as follows: “He Waxed Eloquent. H. P. Hanson fined ten
dollars for refusing payment of car fare.... H. P. Hanson, a real
estate and insurance broker of South Boston, emerged from the seething
mass of humanity that filled the dock and indulged in a wordy bout
with policeman Hogan, who claimed to have arrested Hanson on the
charge of evading car fare and being drunk at the same time. The judge
agreed that the prisoner was sober, but on the charge of evasion of
car fare the evidence warranted the fining of the eloquent occupant of
the dock ten dollars without costs, which he paid.”
Footnote 428:
The opinion of the dissenting judges is supported by the decisions and
_dicta_ in other jurisdictions. Butler _v._ Barret, 130 Fed. 944
(_semble_); Every Evening Co. _v._ Butler, 144 Fed. 916; Taylor _v._
Hearst, 107 Cal. 262; Hulbert _v._ New Co., 111 Ia. 490; Davis _v._
Marxhausen, 86 Mich. 281, 103 Mich. 315 (_semble_); Clark _v._ North
American Co., 203 Pa. St. 346 (_semble_); Hutchinson _v._ Robinson, 21
N. S. W. L. R. (Law) 130 (_semble_). Compare Newton _v._ Grubbs, 155
Ky. 479; Ellis _v._ Brockton Pub. Co., 198 Mass. 538; Dunlop _v._
Sundberg, 55 Wash. 609.
Footnote 429:
Compare Gandia _v._ Pettingill, 222 U. S. 452; Van Wiginton _v._
Pulitzer Pub. Co., (C. C. A.) 218 Fed. 795; Jones _v._ R. L. Polk &
Co., 190 Ala. 243 (publishing of white woman that she is colored);
Ball _v._ Evening American Co., 237 Ill. 592; MacIntyre _v._ Fruchter,
148 N. Y. Suppl. 786 (“fit only for negroes to associate with”);
Spencer _v._ Looney, 116 Va. 767 (assertion of white person that he
was colored); Galveston Tribune _v._ Guisti, (Tex. Civ. App.) 134 S.
W. 239.
Footnote 430:
This abridged statement has been substituted. The arguments and all
but one of the opinions have been omitted.
Footnote 431:
Compare Northrop _v._ Tibbles, (C. C. A.) 215 Fed. 99. See Smith,
Jones _v._ Hulton, Three Conflicting Views as to a Question of
Defamation, 60 University of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 365, 461.
Footnote 432:
The statement of the pleadings is abridged, and only the opinion of
Littledale, J., is given. Bayley and Parke, JJ., concurred.
Footnote 433:
That the defendant repeated a defamation, giving the name of the
author, seems originally to have been a justification. Northampton’s
Case, 12 Rep. 134 (Fourth Resolution). But the name of the author was
to be given at the time of repetition, and not for the first time in
the plea. Davis _v._ Lewis, 7 T. R. 17. The words, furthermore, had to
be given with sufficient exactness to ground an action against the
author. Maitland _v._ Goldney, 2 East, 426. Doubts were thrown upon
the validity of this justification in Lewis _v._ Walter, 4 B. & Al.
605. The whole doctrine was repudiated, as to libel, in De Crespigny
_v._ Wellesley, 5 Bing. 392, and Tidman _v._ Ainslie, 10 Ex. 63; and
as to slander, in McPherson _v._ Daniels; Watkin _v._ Hall, L. R. 3 Q.
B. 396.
See to same effect Age-Herald Pub. Co. _v._ Waterman, 188 Ala. 272;
Washington Herald Co. _v._ Berry, 41 App. D. C. 322; Brewer _v._
Chase, 121 Mich. 526; Hagener _v._ Pulitzer Pub. Co., 172 Mo. App.
436; Vallery _v._ State, 42 Neb. 123; Walling _v._ Commercial
Advertiser, 165 App. Div. 26; Galveston Tribune _v._ Johnson, (Tex.
Civ. App.) 141 S. W. 302. See also Whitney _v._ Moignard, 24 Q. B. D.
630.
In Speight _v._ Gosnay, 60 L. J. Q. B. 231, the words were not
actionable without special damage and the special damage resulted only
from unauthorized repetition by a third person.
Footnote 434:
This short statement of the case, taken from 3 Camp. 214, has been
substituted for the declaration which is set out at considerable
length in the original report.
Footnote 435:
“When our ancestors years ago drew the distinction between libel and
slander, they exercised that kind of wise discretion which they always
exercised over the whole field of the common law. It would to my mind
be very dangerous for us nowadays to relax in any way the rule of law
which confines actions for spoken words, in the absence of proof of
special damage, to a very limited number of cases.” Vaughan Williams,
L. J., in Dauncey _v._ Holloway, [1901] 2 K. B. 441, 448. See also A.
L. Smith, L. J., Id. 447. But compare Colby _v._ Reynolds, 6 Vt. 489,
493; Tillson _v._ Robbins, 68 Me. 295.
The distinction sanctioned in the principal case between oral and
written scandal still obtains in England and the United States. The
definition of a libel as a written publication calculated to bring
another into hatred, ridicule, or contempt, is also universally
recognized in English-speaking countries. As it is a pure question of
fact for the jury whether the publication in a given case comes within
this definition, it has not seemed advisable to bring together in this
book the multitudinous instances which have been passed upon. A full
collection of the cases may be found in Odgers, Libel and Slander, (5
ed.) 18–38; Townshend, Slander and Libel; (4 ed.) 203–221; 25 Cyc.
255–264.
An action for a libel made in the course of judicial proceedings
cannot be maintained until the proceedings have terminated in favor of
the person defamed, Masterson _v._ Brown, 72 Fed. 136.
Footnote 436:
There is great diversity of opinion as to what words, imputing the
commission of a crime, are actionable _per se_. The authorities may be
classified as follows:—
I. Words imputing a criminal offence punishable corporally.
In Hawes’s Case, March, 113 (speaking against common prayer); Heake
_v._ Moulton, Yelv. 90; Walden _v._ Mitchell, 2 Ventr. 265; Scoble
_v._ Lee, 2 Show. 32 (regrating); McCabe _v._ Foot, 15 L. T. Rep. 115;
Elliott _v._ Ailsberry, 2 Bibb, 473 (fornication); M’Gee _v._ Wilson,
Litt. S. C. 187 (unchastity); Mills _v._ Wimp, 10 B. Mon. 417
(_semble_); Buck _v._ Hersey, 31 Me. 558 (drunkenness); Wagaman _v._
Byers, 17 Md. 183 (adultery); Birch _v._ Benton, 26 Mo. 153 (whipping
one’s wife); Speaker _v._ McKenzie, 26 Mo. 255 (whipping one’s
mother); Billings _v._ Wing, 7 Vt. 439 (“he snaked his mother out of
doors by the hair of her head; it was the day before she died”), the
words uttered were held not to give a right of action, since they
imputed crimes punishable only by fine, or by imprisonment merely as a
consequence of the non-payment of the fine.
II. Words imputing a criminal offence and involving moral turpitude.
Sipp _v._ Coleman, 179 Fed. 997; Taylor _v._ Gumpert, 96 Ark. 354;
Frisbie _v._ Fowler, 2 Conn. 707; Hoag _v._ Hatch, 23 Conn. 585; Page
_v._ Merwin, 54 Conn. 426; Kennenberg _v._ Neff, 74 Conn. 62;
Yakavicze _v._ Valentukevicious, 84 Conn. 350; Reitan _v._ Goebel, 33
Minn. 151.
III. Words imputing a criminal offence, involving moral turpitude and
punishable corporally. Redway _v._ Gray, 31 Vt. 292 (qualifying
Billings _v._ Wing, 7 Vt. 439); Murray _v._ McAllister, 38 Vt. 167.
IV. Words imputing a criminal offence involving disgrace. Miller _v._
Parish, 8 Pick. 384; Brown _v._ Nickerson, 5 Gray, 1; Kenney _v._
McLaughlin, 5 Gray, 3; Ranger _v._ Goodrich, 17 Wis. 78; Mayer _v._
Schleichter, 29 Wis. 646; Gibson _v._ Gibson, 43 Wis. 23; Geary _v._
Bennett, 53 Wis. 444.
V. Words imputing a criminal offence subjecting the offender to
infamous punishment. Shipp _v._ McCraw, 3 Murph. 463; Brady _v._
Wilson, 4 Hawks. 93; Skinner _v._ White, 1 Dev. & Bat. 471; Wall _v._
Hoskins, 5 Ired. 177; Wilson _v._ Tatum, 8 Jones, (N. C.) 300; McKee
_v._ Wilson, 87 N. C. 300; Harris _v._ Terry, 98 N. C. 131.
VI. Words imputing an _indictable_ offence involving moral turpitude,
or subjecting the offender to an infamous punishment. See Brooker _v._
Coffin, _infra_, and cases cited.
VII. Words imputing an _indictable_ offence punishable corporally.
Griffin _v._ Moore, 43 Md. 246; Shafer _v._ Ahalt, 48 Md. 171; Birch
_v._ Benton, 26 Mo. 153; Curry _v._ Collins, 37 Mo. 324; Bundy _v._
Hart, 46 Mo. 460; Lewis _v._ McDaniel, 82 Mo. 577; Houston _v._
Woolley, 37 Mo. App. 15, 24; Parsons _v._ Henry, 177 Mo. App. 329.
_As to defamation of a corporation_, see Oram _v._ Hutt, [1913] 1 Ch.
259; Axton Tobacco Co. _v._ Evening Post Co., 169 Ky. 64; Stone _v._
Textile Employers Ass’n, 137 App. Div. 655.
Footnote 437:
Only the opinion of the court is given.
Footnote 438:
By 54 & 55 Vict. c. 51, words which impute unchastity or adultery to
any woman or girl are actionable, without special damage.
Footnote 439:
This rule has been approved in the following cases: Pollard _v._ Lyon,
91 U. S. 225; Perdue _v._ Burnett, Minor, 138; Dudley _v._ Horn, 21
Ala. 379; Hillhouse _v._ Peck, 2 St. & P. 395; Heath _v._ Devaughn, 37
Ala. 677; Kinney _v._ Hosea, 3 Harring, 77; Pleasanton _v._
Kronemeier, 29 Del. 81; Pledger _v._ Hathcock, 1 Ga. 550; Giddens _v._
Mirk, 4 Ga. 364; Richardson _v._ Roberts, 23 Ga. 215; Burton _v._
Burton, 3 Greene, 316; Halley _v._ Gregg, 74 Ia. 563; Wooten _v._
Martin, 140 Ky. 781; St. Martin _v._ Desnoyer, 1 Minn. 156; West _v._
Hanrahan, 28 Minn. 385; Chaplin _v._ Lee, 18 Neb. 440; Hendrickson
_v._ Sullivan, 28 Neb. 329; McCuen _v._ Ludlum, 2 Harr. 12; Johnson
_v._ Shields, 25 N. J. Law, 116; Widrig _v._ Oyer, 13 Johns. 124;
Martin _v._ Stilwell, 13 Johns. 275; Alexander _v._ Alexander, 9 Wend.
141; Case _v._ Buckley, 15 Wend. 327; Bissell _v._ Cornell, 24 Wend.
354; Demarest _v._ Haring, 6 Cow. 76; Young _v._ Miller, 3 Hill, 21;
Wright _v._ Paige, 3 Keyes, 581, 3 Trans. App. 134, S. C.; Crawford
_v._ Wilson, 4 Barb. 504; Johnson _v._ Brown, 57 Barb. 118; Quinn _v._
O’Gara, 2 E. D. Sm. 388; Torres _v._ Huner, 150 App. Div. 798; Dial
_v._ Holter, 6 Ohio St. 228; Alfele _v._ Wright, 17 Ohio St. 238;
Hollingsworth _v._ Shaw, 19 Ohio St. 430; Davis _v._ Brown, 27 Ohio
St. 326; Davis _v._ Sladden, 17 Or. 259; Andres _v._ Koppenheafer, 3
S. & R. 255; Davis _v._ Carey, 141 Pa. St. 314; Lodge _v._ O’Toole, 20
R. I. 405; Gage _v._ Shelton, 3 Rich. 242; Smith _v._ Brown, 97 S. C.
239; Smith _v._ Smith, 2 Sneed, 473; McAnally _v._ Williams, 3 Sneed,
26; Poe _v._ Grever, 3 Sneed, 664; Payne _v._ Tancil, 98 Va. 262. See
Moore _v._ Francis, 121 N. Y. 199.
Footnote 440:
Hence it is not actionable (without special damage) to call a man a
“bastard,” Paysse _v._ Paysse, 86 Wash. 349, or a “blackleg and
swindler,” McIntyre _v._ Fruchter, 148 N. Y. Supp. 786; or a “rascal,”
Massee _v._ Williams, 207 Mass. 222, or to call a woman a “bitch.”
Craver _v._ Norton, 114 Ia. 46; Sturdivant _v._ Duke, 155 Ky. 100;
Kerone _v._ Block, 144 Mo. App. 575; Blake _v._ Smith, 19 R. I. 476.
But in Fowler _v._ Dowdney, 2 Moody & R. 119, the words “he is a
returned convict” were held actionable, Lord Denman, C. J., saving
that though the punishment had been suffered, “still the obloquy
remains.” Gainford _v._ Tuke, Cro. Jac. 536; Boston _v._ Tatam, Cro.
Jac. 623; Beavor _v._ Hides, 2 Wils. 300; Stewart _v._ Howe, 17 Ill.
71; Wiley _v._ Campbell, 5 T. B. Monr. 396; Krebs _v._ Oliver, 12
Gray, 239; Johnson _v._ Dicken, 25 Mo. 580; Van Ankin _v._ Westfall,
14 Johns. 233; Ship _v._ McCraw, 3 Murphy, 463; Smith _v._ Stewart, 5
Pa. St. 372; Beck _v._ Stitzel, 21 Pa. St. 522; Poe _v._ Grever, 3
Sneed, (Tenn.) 664 _Accord_.
Compare Carpenter _v._ Tarrant, C. t. Hardw. 339; French _v._ Creath,
Breese, 12; Barclay _v._ Thompson, 2 Pen. & W. 148.
Footnote 441:
Only portions of the opinion are given.
Footnote 442:
See also Keck _v._ Shepard, (Ark.) 180 S. W. 501 (statutory); Craver
_v._ Norton, 114 Ia. 46; Hahn _v._ Lumpa, 158 Ia. 560; Traylor _v._
White, 185 Mo. App. 325 (statutory); Culver _v._ Marx, 157 Wis. 320.
On the whole subject, see Veeder, History and Theory of the Law of
Defamation, 4 Columbia Law Rev. 33, 52.
Footnote 443:
Only the opinion of the court is given.
Footnote 444:
“We think that the rule as to words spoken of a man in his office or
trade is not necessarily confined to offices and trades of the nature
and duties of which the court can take judicial notice. The only
limitation of which we are aware is, that it does not apply to illegal
callings.” Channel, B., in Foulger _v._ Newcomb, L. R. 2 Ex. 327, 330.
Footnote 445:
Alexander _v._ Angle, 1 Cr. & J. 143; Sibley _v._ Tomlins, 4 Tyrwh.
90; Doyley _v._ Roberts, 3 B. N. C. 835; Brayne _v._ Cooper, 5 M. & W.
249; James _v._ Brook, 9 Q. B. 7; Dauncey _v._ Holloway, [1901] 2 K.
B. 441; Hogg _v._ Dorrah, 2 Porter, (Ala.) 212; Oram _v._ Franklin, 5
Blackf. 42; Buck _v._ Hersey, 31 Me. 558; Oakley _v._ Farrington, 1
Johns. Cas. 129; Van Tassel _v._ Capron, 1 Den. 250; Ireland _v._
McGarvish, 1 Sandf. 155; Chomley _v._ Watson, [1907] Vict. L. R. 502
_Accord_.
Compare Ware _v._ Clowney, 24 Ala. 707; Butler _v._ Howes, 7 Cal. 87;
Fowles _v._ Bowen, 30 N. Y. 20.
“Some of the cases have proceeded to a length which can hardly fail to
excite surprise: a clergyman having failed to obtain redress for the
imputation of adultery; and a school-mistress having been declared
incompetent to maintain an action for a charge of prostitution. Such
words were undeniably calculated to injure the success of the
plaintiffs in their several professions, but, not being applicable to
their conduct therein, no action lay.” Lord Denman, C. J., in Ayre
_v._ Craven, 2 A. & E. 2. See Morasse _v._ Brooks, 151 Mass. 567, 568.
_Imputation of misconduct to a clergyman_, see Bishop of Norwich _v._
Pricket, Cro. Eliz. 1 (heterodoxy in religion); Payne _v._ Bewmorris,
1 Lev. 248 (incontinence); Pope _v._ Ramsey, 1 Keb. 542 (knave, &c.);
Chaddock _v._ Briggs, 13 Mass. 248 (drunkenness); Ritchie _v._
Widdemer, 59 N. J. Law, 290; Demarest _v._ Haring, 6 Cow. 76
(incontinence); Potter _v._ N. Y. Journal, 68 App. Div. 95; Hayner
_v._ Cowden, 27 Ohio St. 292 (drunkenness); McMillan _v._ Birch, 1
Binney, 178 (drunkenness); Starr _v._ Gardner, 6 Up. Can. Q. B. O. S.
512 (incontinence; but see, _contra_, Breeze _v._ Sails, 23 Up. Can.
Q. B. 94, incontinence), holding the words actionable.
Parrat _v._ Carpenter, Cro. El. 502; Nicholson _v._ Lyne, Cro. El. 94;
Anon., Sty. 49 _Contra_. Compare Gallwey _v._ Marshall, 9 Ex. 294,
568.
_Imputation to teacher of discreditable conduct with pupils._ Spears
_v._ McCoy, 155 Ky. 1. Compare Nicholson _v._ Dillard, 137 Ga. 225.
_Imputation to an officer of drunkenness while on duty._ Reilly _v._
Curtis, 83 N. J. Law, 77.
Footnote 446:
Kempe’s Case, Dy. 72, pl. 6; Stanton _v._ Smith, 2 Ld. Ray. 1480;
Brown _v._ Smith, 13 C. B. 596; Pacific Packing Co. _v._ Bradstreet,
25 Idaho, 696; Simons _v._ Burnham, 102 Mich. 189; Traynor _v._
Sielaff, 62 Minn. 420; Hynds _v._ Fourteenth Street Store, 159 App.
Div. 766; Davis _v._ Ruff, Cheeves, 17 _Accord_.
Barnes _v._ Trundy, 31 Me. 321; Redway _v._ Gray, 31 Vt. 292 _Contra_.
See Bell _v._ Thatcher, Freem. 276; Bryant _v._ Loxton, 11 Moore, 344;
Marino _v._ Di Marco, 41 App. D. C. 76 (“sells rotten goods”); Taylor
_v._ Church, 1 E. D. Smith, 287; Fowles _v._ Bowen, 30 N. Y. 20;
Bilgrien _v._ Ulrich, 150 Wis. 532 (habitual cheating).
Footnote 447:
Sumner _v._ Utley, 7 Conn. 257; Garr _v._ Selden, 6 Barb. 416; Rodgers
_v._ Kline, 56 Miss. 808; Lynde _v._ Johnson, 39 Hun. 5 _Accord_.
Footnote 448:
Johnson _v._ Robertson, 8 Port. (Ala.) 486; Sumner _v._ Utley, 7 Conn.
257; Lovejoy _v._ Whitcomb, 174 Mass. 586; Freisinger _v._ Moore, 65
N. J. Law, 286; Mattice _v._ Wilcox, 147 N. Y. 624; Krug _v._ Pitass,
162 N. Y. 154, 163 N. Y. 600; Lynde _v._ Johnson, 39 Hun, 12;
Hollingsworth _v._ Spectator Co., 49 App. Div. 16; McIntyre _v._
Weinert, 195 Pa. St. 52; Holland _v._ Flick, 212 Pa. St. 201; Gauvreau
_v._ Superior Co., 62 Wis. 403 _Accord_. See Watson _v._ Vanderlash,
Hetl. 69; Edsall _v._ Russell, 4 M. & Gr. 1090. Compare Twiggar _v._
Ossining Printing Co., 161 App. Div. 718; Larsen _v._ Brooklyn Eagle,
165 App. Div. 4.
Foot _v._ Brown, 8 Johns. 64 _Contra_. See Camp _v._ Martin, 23 Conn.
86; Pratt _v._ Pioneer Co., 35 Minn. 251.
The imputation of misconduct in an office of honor but not of profit
is actionable _per se_, Booth _v._ Arnold, [1895] 1 Q. B. 571;
Livingston _v._ McCartin, [1907] Vict. L. R. 48. But the rule is
otherwise, according to Alexander _v._ Jenkins, [1892] 1 Q. B. 797, as
to the imputation of unfitness for such an office.
Footnote 449:
Brook _v._ Wife, Cro. El. 878; Davis _v._ Taylor, Cro. El. 648;
Garford _v._ Clerk, Cro. El. 857; Miller’s Case, Cro. Jac. 430;
Crittal _v._ Horner, Hob. 219 _b_; Elyott _v._ Blague, Sty. 283;
Marshall _v._ Chickall, 1 Sid. 50; Comming’s Case, 2 Sid. 5; Lymbe
_v._ Hockly, 1 Lev. 205; Grimes _v._ Lovel, 12 Mod. 242; Clifton _v._
Wells, 12 Mod. 634; Whitfield _v._ Powel, 12 Mod. 248; Bloodworth _v._
Gray, 7 M. & G. 334; Watson _v._ McCarthy, 2 Ga. 57; Nichols _v._ Guy,
2 Ind. 82; McDonald _v._ Nugent, 122 Ia. 651; Meteye _v._ Times Co.,
47 La. Ann. 824; Golderman _v._ Stearns, 7 Gray, 181; Williams _v._
Holdredge, 22 Barb. 396; Hewitt _v._ Mason, 24 How. Pr. 366; Upton
_v._ Upton, 51 Hun, 184; Simpson _v._ Press Co., 33 Misc. 228; Kaucher
_v._ Blinn, 29 Ohio St. 62; Irons _v._ Field, 9 R. I. 216 _Accord_.
Bury _v._ Chappel, Golds. 135; James _v._ Rutlech, 4 Rep. 17 _a_; Hunt
_v._ Jones, Cro. Jac. 499; Califord _v._ Knight, Cro. Jac. 514
_Contra_.
In Taylor _v._ Hall, 2 Strange, 1189, it was held not actionable to
say that plaintiff had had the pox. Smith’s Case, Noy, 151; Dutton
_v._ Eaton, Al. 30; Carslake _v._ Mapledoram, 2 T. R. 473; Nichols
_v._ Guy, 2 Ind. 82; Pike _v._ Van Wormer, 5 How. Pr. 171; Irons _v._
Field, 9 R. I. 216 _Accord_. Austin _v._ White, Cro. El. 214; Anon.
Ow. 34; Hobson _v._ Hudson, Sty. 199, 219 _Contra_.
Footnote 450:
Only the opinion of the court is given.
Footnote 451:
But see Fitzgerald _v._ Young, 89 Neb. 693 (imputation of insanity to
a teacher).
Footnote 452:
Only the opinion of the court upon this point is given.
Footnote 453:
Lucas _v._ Cotton, Moore, 79; Underwood _v._ Parks, 2 Stra. 1200;
Ellis _v._ Buzzell, 60 Me. 209; Baum _v._ Clause, 5 Hill, 196
_Accord_.
The rule is the same as to actions for a libel. Leyman _v._ Latimer, 3
Ex. D. 15, 352; Grand Union Tea Co. _v._ Lorch, (C. C. A.) 231 Fed.
390; Schuler _v._ Fischer, 167 Ala. 184; Children _v._ Shinn, 168 Ia.
531; Castle _v._ Hunston, 19 Kan. 417; Hanson _v._ Bristow, 87 Kan.
72; Herald Pub. Co. _v._ Feltner, 158 Ky. 35; Cook _v._ Pulitzer Pub.
Co., 241 Mo. 326; Merrey _v._ Guardian Pub. Co., 79 N. J. Law, 177;
Willetts _v._ Scudder, 72 Or. 535. Unless modified by statute, as in
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York,
Rhode Island and West Virginia. Delaware Co. _v._ Croasdale, 6 Houst.
181; Jones _v._ Townsend, 21 Fla. 431; Palmer _v._ Adams, 137 Ind. 72;
Perry _v._ Porter, 124 Mass. 338; Fordyce _v._ Richmond, 78 Neb. 752;
McClaugherty _v._ Cooper, 39 W. Va. 313. In New Hampshire and
Pennsylvania, however, the mere truth of the libel is not always a
defence, although there is no such statute. Hutchins _v._ Page, 75 N.
H. 215; Burkhart _v._ N. Am. Co., 214 Pa. St. 39.
Footnote 454:
The statement of the pleadings is abridged; the arguments of counsel
and the concurring opinions of Martin, Channell, and Bramwell, BB.,
are omitted.
Footnote 455:
Rex _v._ Skinner, Lofft, 55; Thomas _v._ Churton, 2 B. & S. 475;
Dawkins _v._ Paulet, L. R. 5 Q. B. 94; Dawkins _v._ Prince Edward, 1
Q. B. D. 499; Law _v._ Llewellyn, [1906] 1 K. B. 487 (judge of
inferior court—Scotch case Allardice _v._ Robertson, 1 Dow & Cl. 495
not followed); Bottomley _v._ Brougham, [1908] 1 K. B. 584 (official
receiver); Miller _v._ Hope, 2 Shaw, App. Cas. 125; Yates _v._
Lansing, 5 Johns. 282, 9 Johns. 395 (but see Aylesworth _v._ St. John,
25 Hun, 156); Allen _v._ Earnest, (Tex. Civ. App.) 145 S. W. 1101
_Accord_.
Kendillon _v._ Maltby, Car. & M. 402, 2 M. & Rob. 438, S. C., lays
down too restricted a rule.
“The publication of defamatory words may be under an absolute or under
a qualified or conditional privilege. Under the former there is no
liability, although the defamatory words are falsely and maliciously
published. The class of absolutely privileged communications is narrow
and practically limited to legislative and judicial proceedings and
acts of state.” Hall, C. J., in Hassett _v._ Carroll, 85 Conn. 23, 35.
See Tanner _v._ Stevenson, 138 Ky. 578; Peterson _v._ Steenerson, 113
Minn. 87.
Footnote 456:
Only the opinion of Brett, M. R., is given.
Footnote 457:
Pedley _v._ Morris, 61 L. J. Q. B. 21 _Accord_.
See Buckley _v._ Wood, 4 Rep. 14 _b_; Hodgson _v._ Scarlett, 1 B. &
Ald. 232; Mackay _v._ Ford, 5 H. & N. 792; Smallwood _v._ York, 163
Ky. 139; Rudin _v._ Fauver, 33 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 315; Kruegel _v._
Cockrell (Tex. Ci _v._ App.) 151 S. W. 352.
“We cannot accept the absolute and unqualified privilege laid down in
Munster _v._ Lamb.... We cannot agree with Brett, M. R., that in a
suit against counsel for slander the only inquiry is whether the words
were spoken in a judicial proceeding, and if so, the case must be
stopped. We quite agree however, with Bramwell, J. A., in Seaman _v._
Netherclift, that ‘relevant’ and ‘pertinent’ are not the best words
that could be used. These words have in a measure a technical meaning,
and we all know the difficulty in determining in some cases what is
relevant or pertinent. With Lord Chancellor Cairns we prefer the words
‘having reference’ or ‘made with reference,’ or in the language of
Shaw, C. J., ‘having relation to the cause or subject-matter.’ And if
counsel in the trial of a cause maliciously slanders a party, or
witness or any other person in regard to a matter that has no
reference or relation to, or connection with, the case before the
Court, he is and ought to be answerable in an action by the party
injured. This qualification of his privilege in no manner impairs the
freedom of discussion so necessary to the proper administration of the
law, nor does it subject counsel to actions for slander except in
cases in which upon reason and sound public policy he ought to be held
answerable. We cannot agree that for the abuse of his privilege he is
amenable only to the authority of the Court. Mere punishment by the
Court is no recompense to one who has thus been maliciously and
wantonly slandered.” Robinson, J., in Maulsby _v._ Reifsnider, 69 Md.
143, 162. La Porta _v._ Leonard, 88 N. J. Law, 663; Andrews _v._
Gardiner, 165 App. Div. 595 _Accord_.
_Defamatory statements in brief of counsel._ Brooks _v._ Bank of
Acadia, 138 La. 657.
_Pleadings._ Nalle _v._ Oyster, 230 U. S. 165; Carpenter _v._ Grimes
Min. Co., 19 Idaho, 384; Hess _v._ McKee, 150 Ia. 409; Lebovitch _v._
Levy, 128 La. 518; Flynn _v._ Boglarsky, 164 Mich. 513; Rosenberg _v._
Dworetsky, 139 App. Div. 517; Harris _v._ Santa Fé Townsite Co., (Tex.
Civ. App.) 125 S. W. 77.
In England, statements in a pleading are absolutely privileged, though
not relevant. Hodson _v._ Pare, [1899] 1 Q. B. 455.
In the United States, statements in a pleading not pertinent to the
action are not privileged. Union Ins. Co. _v._ Thomas, 83 Fed. 803;
King _v._ McKissick, 126 Fed. 215; Potter _v._ Troy, 175 Fed. 128;
Myers _v._ Hodges, 53 Fla. 197; Gaines _v._ Aetna Ins. Co., 104 Ky.
695; Jones _v._ Brownlee, 161 Mo. 258; Gilbert _v._ People, 1 Denio,
41; Kemper _v._ Fort, 219 Pa. St. 85; Crockett _v._ McLanahan, 109
Tenn. 517; Miller _v._ Gust, 71 Wash. 139.
_Charges in disbarment proceedings_, see Preusser _v._ Faulhaber, 33
Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 312.
_Statements in a petition for pardon._ Connollee _v._ Blanton, (Tex.
Ci _v._ App.) 163 S. W. 404 (held absolutely privileged).
_Statement by defendant on trial for crime._ Nelson _v._ Davis, 9 Ga.
App. 131.
In Louisiana the statements of parties in judicial proceedings are not
absolutely privileged. Lescale _v._ Joseph Schwartz Co., 116 La. 293,
118 La. 718; Dunn _v._ Southern Co., 116 La. 431.
Footnote 458:
The arguments and the opinion of Amphlett, J. A., are omitted.
Footnote 459:
Revis _v._ Smith, 18 C. B. 126; Henderson _v._ Broomhead, 4 H. & N.
569; Dawkins v. Rokeby, L. R. 7 H. L. 744, L. R. 8 Q. B. 255 (military
court of inquiry); Goffin _v._ Donnelly, 6 Q. B. D. 307 (select
committee of House of Commons); Gompas _v._ White, 6 T. L. R. 20;
Watson _v._ Jones, [1905] A. C. 480 (privilege extends to statement to
client and solicitor in preparation of case for trial); Terry _v._
Fellows, 21 La. Ann. 375; Hunckle _v._ Voneiff, 69 Md. 173; Dodge _v._
Gilman, 122 Minn. 177; Runge _v._ Franklin, 72 Tex. 585; Kennedy _v._
Hilliard, 10 Ir. C. L. R. 195 _Accord_. But the English courts do not
extend the doctrine to hearings before an administrative board. Atwood
_v._ Chapman, 111 L. T. 726.
See also Hutchinson _v._ Lewis, 75 Ind. 55; Liles _v._ Gaster, 42 Ohio
St. 631.
In Dawkins _v._ Lord Rokeby, _supra_, Lord Penzance said: “It is said
that a statement of fact of a libellous nature which is palpably
untrue—known to be untrue by him who made it, and dictated by
malice—ought to be the subject of a civil remedy, though made in the
course of a purely military inquiry. This mode of stating the question
assumes the untruth and assumes the malice. If by any process of
demonstration, free from the defects of human judgment, the untruth
and malice could be set above and beyond all question or doubt, there
might be ground for contending that the law of the land should give
damages to the injured man.
“But this is not the state of things under which this question of law
has to be determined. Whether the statements were, in fact, untrue,
and whether they were dictated by malice, are, and always will be,
open questions, upon which opinions may differ, and which can only be
resolved by the exercise of human judgment. And the real question is,
whether it is proper on grounds of public policy to remit such
questions to the judgment of a jury. The reasons against doing so are
simple and obvious. A witness may be utterly free from malice, and may
yet in the eyes of a jury be open to that imputation; or, again, the
witness may be cleared by the jury of the imputation, and may yet have
to encounter the expenses and distress of a harassing litigation. With
such possibilities hanging over his head, a witness cannot be expected
to speak with that free and open mind which the administration of
justice demands.
“These considerations have long since led to the legal doctrine that a
witness in the courts of law is free from any action; and I fail to
perceive any reason why the same considerations should not be applied
to an inquiry such as the present, and with the same result.”
Footnote 460:
The statement, arguments of counsel and parts of the opinion are
omitted.
Footnote 461:
“White _v._ Carroll, rightly understood, is in harmony with the other
cases. The case shows that the court held that the answer given to the
question put to the defendant as a witness before the surrogate was
not material and pertinent to the inquiry; and further held it was
privileged if the defendant, when he gave it, in good faith believed
that it was; and whether he so believed, was a question of fact to be
determined by the jury. Had the evidence proved that the answer was
material and pertinent, the court must have held it privileged,
irrespective of the defendant’s belief upon the subject.” Grover, J.,
in Marsh _v._ Ellsworth, 50 N. Y. 309, 313.
“It seems to be settled by the English authorities that judges,
counsel, parties, and witnesses are absolutely exempted from liability
to an action for defamatory words published in the course of judicial
proceedings; and that the same doctrine is generally held in the
American courts, with the qualification, as to parties, counsel, and
witnesses, that their statements made in the course of an action must
be pertinent and material to the case.” Lord, J., in McLaughlin _v._
Cowley, 127 Mass. 316, 319.
“The examination of witnesses is regulated by the tribunal before
which they testify, and if witnesses answer pertinently questions
asked them by counsel which are not excluded by the tribunal, or
answer pertinently questions asked them by the tribunal, they ought to
be absolutely protected. It is not the duty of a witness to decide for
himself whether the questions asked him under the direction of the
tribunal are relevant. As the witness is sworn to tell the whole truth
relating to the matter concerning which his testimony is taken, he
ought also to be absolutely protected in testifying to any matter
which is relevant to the inquiry, or which he reasonably believes to
be relevant to it. But a witness ought not to be permitted with
impunity to volunteer defamatory statements which are irrelevant to
the matter of inquiry, and which he does not believe to be relevant.
This statement of the law we think, is supported by the decisions in
this Commonwealth. The English decisions, perhaps, go somewhat further
than this in favor of a witness; certainly they apply the rule
liberally for his protection.” Field, J., in Wright _v._ Lothrop, 149
Mass. 385, 389.
The principal case and the preceding extracts in this note represent
the views of the American courts in general.
King _v._ McKissick, 126 Fed. 215; Lawson _v._ Hicks, 38 Ala. 279;
Wyatt _v._ Buell, 47 Cal. 624; Hollis _v._ Meux, 69 Cal. 625; People
_v._ Green, 9 Col. 506; Lester _v._ Thurmond, 51 Ga. 118; Buschbaum
_v._ Heriot, 5 Ga. App. 521; Spaids _v._ Barrett, 57 Ill. 289; Fagan
_v._ Fries, 30 Ill. App. 236; Smith _v._ Howard, 28 Ia. 51; Hawk _v._
Evans, 76 Ia. 593; Forbes _v._ Johnson, 11 B. Mon. 48; Morgan _v._
Booth, 13 Bush, 480; Stewart _v._ Hall, 83 Ky. 375; Sebree _v._
Thompson, 126 Ky. 223; Kelly _v._ Lafitte, 28 La. Ann. 435; Gardemal
_v._ McWilliams, 43 La. Ann. 454; Barnes _v._ McCrate, 32 Me. 442;
Hoar _v._ Wood, 3 Met. 193; Kidder _v._ Parkhurst, 3 All. 393;
McLaughlin _v._ Cowley, 127 Mass. 316; Wright _v._ Lothrop, 149 Mass.
385; Wheaton _v._ Beecher, 49 Mich. 348; Acre _v._ Starkweather, 118
Mich. 214; Hastings _v._ Lusk, 22 Wend. 410; Ring _v._ Wheeler, 7 Cow.
725; Garr _v._ Selden, 4 N. Y. 91; Marsh _v._ Ellsworth, 50 N. Y. 309;
Moore _v._ Manufacturers’ Bank, 123 N. Y. 420, 136 N. Y. 666; Newfield
_v._ Copperman, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 360; Perkins _v._ Mitchell, 31 Barb.
461; Dada _v._ Piper, 41 Hun, 254; McLaughlin _v._ Charles, 60 Hun,
239; Beggs _v._ McCrea, 62 App. Div. 39 (_semble_); Suydam _v._
Moffat, 1 Sandf. 459; Perzel _v._ Tousey, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 79;
Cooper _v._ Phipps, 24 Or. 357; Shadden _v._ McElwee, 86 Tenn. 146;
Mower _v._ Watson, 11 Vt. 536; Dunham _v._ Powers, 42 Vt. 1; Johnson
_v._ Brown, 13 W. Va. 71; Jennings _v._ Paine, 4 Wis. 358; Calkins
_v._ Sumner, 13 Wis. 193; Larkin _v._ Noonan, 19 Wis. 82.
_Statements volunteered by witness._ Viss _v._ Calligan, 91 Wash. 673.
_Statements in affidavit._ Perry _v._ Perry, 153 N. C. 266; Baggett
_v._ Grady, 154 N. C. 342; Keeley _v._ Great Northern R. Co., 156 Wis.
181. But see Ritschy _v._ Garrels, 195 Mo. App. 670.
_Affidavit in legislative investigation._ Tuohy _v._ Hassell, 35 Okl.
61.
_Defamatory statements at creditors’ meeting._ Smith _v._ Agee, 178
Ala. 627.
_Statements in notice of foreclosure sale._ Tierney _v._ Ruppert, 150
App. Div. 863.
_Report of grand jury without indictment._ Rich _v._ Eason, (Tex. Civ.
App.) 180 S. W. 303.
_Statement of guardian as to person making claim against ward’s
estate._ Marney _v._ Joseph, 94 Kan. 18.
_Letter from one attorney to another_, not confined to the matters in
litigation. Savage _v._ Stover, 86 N. J. Law, 478.
_Message of a mayor._ A communication from the mayor of a city to the
common council is absolutely privileged. Trebilcock _v._ Anderson, 117
Mich. 39.
_Official statements of officers of state_ are absolutely privileged.
Chatterton _v._ Secretary of State, [1895] 2 Q. B. 189; Spalding _v._
Vilas, 161 U. S. 483.
_Statements of administrative officers._ Farr _v._ Valentine, 38 App.
D. C. 413; Haskell v. Perkins, 165 Ill. App. 144; Tanner _v._
Stevenson, 138 Ky. 578; Peterson v. Steenerson, 113 Minn. 87; Johnson
_v._ Marsh, 82 N. J. Law, 4 (notice not to sell liquor to alleged
drunkard); Bingham _v._ Gaynor, 203 N. Y. 27.
Footnote 462:
It is well settled that no action is allowed against a witness for
damage caused by his perjury. Damport _v._ Sympson, Cro. El. 520, Ow.
158, 2 And. 47, s. c.; Eyres _v._ Sedgewicke, Cro. Jac. 601; Yelv.
142, 2 Roll. R. 197, S. C.; Wimberly _v._ Thompson, Noy, 6; Harding
_v._ Bodman, Hutt. 11; Coxe _v._ Smithe, 1 Lev. 119; Taylor _v._
Bidwell, 65 Cal. 489; Bostwick _v._ Lewis, 2 Day, 447; Grove _v._
Brandenburg, 7 Blackf. 239; Dunlap _v._ Glidden, 31 Me. 435; Severance
_v._ Judkins, 73 Me. 376, 379; Garing _v._ Fraser, 76 Me. 37; Phelps
_v._ Stearns, 4 Gray, 105; Curtis _v._ Fairbanks, 16 N. H. 542; Smith
_v._ Lewis, 3 Johns. 157; Cunningham _v._ Brown, 18 Vt. 123.
See Bell _v._ Senneff, 83 Ill. 122. Compare Schaub _v._ O’Ferrell, 116
Md. 131.
Footnote 463:
See also Taylor _v._ Bidwell, 65 Cal. 489; Curtis _v._ Fairbanks, 16
N. H. 542; Stevens _v._ Rowe, 59 N. H. 578.
Footnote 464:
A part of the opinion relating to points of pleading is omitted.
Footnote 465:
The arguments and the concurring opinions of Martin and Channell, BB.,
are omitted.
Footnote 466:
Risk Allah Bey _v._ Whitehurst, 18 L. T. Rep. 615; Hope _v._ Leng, 23
T. L. R. 243; Furniss _v._ Cambridge News, 23 T. L. R. 705; Todd _v._
Every Evening Co., (Del.) 62 Atl. 1089 (_semble_); Blodgett _v._ Des
Moines Co., (Ia.) 113 N. W. 821; Billet _v._ Publishing Co., 107 La.
751 (_semble_); McBee _v._ Fulton, 47 Md. 403; Cowley _v._ Pulsifer,
137 Mass. 392; Conner _v._ Standard Co., 183 Mass. 474; Nixon _v._
Dispatch Co., 101 Minn. 309; Hawkins _v._ Globe Co., 10 Mo. App. 174;
Boogher _v._ Knapp, 97 Mo. 122; Brown _v._ Knapp, 213 Mo. 655
(_semble_); Brown _v._ Globe Co., 213 Mo. 611; Thompson _v._ Powning,
15 Nev. 195; Edsall _v._ Brooks, 17 Abb. Pr. 221; N. Y. Code Civ.
Proc., § 1907; Ackerman _v._ Jones, 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 42; Salisbury
_v._ Union Co., 45 Hun, 120; Hart _v._ Sun Co., 79 Hun, 358;
Cincinnati Co. _v._ Timberlake, 10 Ohio St. 548; Metcalf _v._ Times
Co., 20 R. I. 674; Saunders _v._ Baxter, 6 Heisk. 369; American Co.
_v._ Gamble, 115 Tenn. 663; People _v._ Glassman, 12 Utah, 238
_Accord_.
So publication of copies from the register of judgments is privileged.
Searles _v._ Scarlett, [1892] 2 Q. B. 56.
Publication of papers filed in the clerk’s office, but not produced in
open court, is not privileged. Meeker _v._ Post Pub. Co., 45 Col. 355;
Cowley _v._ Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392; Lundin _v._ Post Pub. Co., 217
Mass. 213; Park _v._ Detroit Co., 72 Mich. 560; Barber _v._ St. Louis
Co., 3 Mo. App. 377; Stuart _v._ Press Co., 83 App. Div. 467; Byers
_v._ Meridian Printing Co., 84 Ohio St. 408; American Co. _v._ Gamble,
115 Tenn. 663; Houston Pub. Co. _v._ McDavid, (Tex. Civ. App.) 173 S.
W. 467; Ilsley _v._ Sentinel Co., 133 Wis. 20.