Palmer v. Haskins
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action for slander. The plaintiff gave evidence having a tendency to prove the cause of action, and then, for the purpose of showing the defendant’s pecuniary ability td respond in damages^ introduced evidence, under ohjection and exception, tending to prove the pecuniary circumstances of the defendant. There was a verdict for the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Marvin, J.
This action was tried before me. I have long entertained serious doubts whether in an action for libel, slander or assault and battery, evidence of the wealth of the defendant was admissible, upon the question of damages. I had occasion several years ago, in Blacksmith v. Fellows, an action for an assault, to examine the question whether the evidence was admissible in such an action; and I came to the conclusion that it was not; and also that it was not admissible in actions to recover damages for libel or slander. Blacksmith v. Fellows presented other questions, upon…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Whitney v. HitchcockNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Bennett v. HydeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
- Larned v. BuffintonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
3Cited by10 opinions
- Rupert v. SellersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
- Press Pub. Co. v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1894
- Enos v. EnosNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Wilson v. Onondaga Radio Broadcasting Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1940
- Brown v. SmallwoodAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.