Wall v. Hoskins
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Randolph County, at the Fall Term, 1844, his Honor Judge Battle presiding. This was an action for words spoken, charging the plaintiff with taking — inuendo, stealing — some bank notes from the defendant at a place in the State of South Carolina. Plea— not guilty.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Randolph County, at the Fall Term, 1844, his Honor Judge Battle presiding. This was an action for words spoken, charging the plaintiff with taking — inuendo, stealing — some bank notes from the defendant at a place in the State of South Carolina. Plea— not guilty. On the trial, the speaking of the words both in South Carolina and this State, was proved; and the counsel for the plaintiff contended, that they were actionable of themselves in the courts of this State. But the court held, that the action could not be sustained, unless the plaintiff proved,…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
The court is of opinion, that the judgment should be affirmed. Every imputation, derogatory to the character of another, is not actionable. A rule as loose as that could not be tolerated. It would be the fruitful source offriv-olous litigation, and supply a notable example of the uncertainty of the law, or, rather, of the results of law-suits. It is indispensable that a rule, having more precision, should be laid down; by which the rights and liabilities of persons may be learned with some reasonable certainty. And it is highly proper that a rule, once adopted, should be observed, that as…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Howard v. . HowardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Brady v. . WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1825