Lotto v. Davenport
Supreme Court of Minnesota
■ Appeal by defendant, Fanny Davenport, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin county, Hicks, J., made September 19, 1891, granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The plaintiff Arthur A. Lotto brought this action to recover damages on account of the libel set out in the opinion in Williams v. Davenport, 42 Minn. 393, as follows: 22nd April.
Read the full summary
■ Appeal by defendant, Fanny Davenport, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin county, Hicks, J., made September 19, 1891, granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The plaintiff Arthur A. Lotto brought this action to recover damages on account of the libel set out in the opinion in Williams v. Davenport, 42 Minn. 393, as follows: 22nd April. Miss Davenport wishes to thank those members of her company who so courteously and willingly received the half week’s salary paid them last week. This was done solely upon the strength of very large railroad fares and excess baggage, and…
1Opinion of the CourtGtleillan, C. J.
It was decided in Williams v. Davenport, 42 Minn. 393, (44 N. W. Rep. 311,) that the writing charged to be libelous in this ease, under the circumstances stated in the complaint, being the same circumstances as were stated in that case, was a libel.
No defect in the evidence of the circumstances on the trial is claimed, except that plaintiff gave no proof of his reputation for gentlemanly and courteous conduct. It is conceded that good repute is *101in general presumed, so that no evidence of it in the first instance is ordinarily necessary. But as such good reputation is alleged in the complaint,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Williams v. DavenportSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Dennis v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dodge v. GilmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Krulic v. PetcoffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913