Hardoncourt v. North Penn Iron Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 133, Jan. T., 1908, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co. Sept. T., 1905, No. 4262, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Arthur Hardoncourt, Jr., v. The North Penn Iron Company. Trespass for libel. Before Kinsey, J. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $15,000. Subsequently the court entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
This was an action for libel and the trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment was entered for the defendant non obstante veredicto on the ground that it had not been shown that the officer of the defendant corporation, who wrote the letter containing the libelous matter complained of, was in so doing acting within the scope of his authority. The letter was sighed “The North Penn Iron Co., P. M. Maloney.” It contained grave charges affecting the character of the plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant, and it was admittedly libelous. Copies of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dalmas v. KembleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Bond v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Hughes v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Shannon v. McHenrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
3Cited by10 opinions
- Montgomery v. DennisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Danko v. Pittsburg Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Hanick v. LeaderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Armstrong v. DescalziSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- McCord v. Baltimore & O. R.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.