Legal Opinion · Dissent

Briggs v. Garrett

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 25, 1886Published

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term, 1884, No. 209. This was an action .of trespass on the casé brought by Amos Briggs against Philip C. Garrett for libel.

Read the full summary

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term, 1884, No. 209. This was an action .of trespass on the casé brought by Amos Briggs against Philip C. Garrett for libel. The plaintiff in his narr. set out with appropriate innuendoes the libellous matter, to wit: A letter written by T. J. Love-grove to defendant as president of the committee of one hundred, charging that the defendant did falsely and maliciously publish, procure and cause to be published of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning the plaintiff in his official capacity to wit: A…

1DissentChief Justice Mercur

filed a dissenting opinion in which Gordon and Sterrett, J. J., concur.

With all due respect for the judgment of the majority of this court, I must dissent therefrom. I will state some of the reasons which move me to this conclusion.

The only question before us is whether the court below erred in not submitting the case to the jury. Although there may have been circumstances proper to consider in mitigation of damages, yet if in any aspect of the case the facts should have gone to the jury, it was error to withhold them.

It is well settled law that any malicious publication written, printed or…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hays v. BrierlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
  2. Farley v. RanckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API