Sickels v. Kling
New York Supreme Court
Motion by the plaintiff for a new trial. Action for damages for ■libel. The complaint was dismissed at the close of the evidence for the plaintiff. The defendant is an attorney and counsellor at law.
Read the full summary
Motion by the plaintiff for a new trial. Action for damages for ■libel. The complaint was dismissed at the close of the evidence for the plaintiff. The defendant is an attorney and counsellor at law. The alleged libel is a sentence of a printed brief submitted by him to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department as counsel for the defendants in an action by this plaintiff, then Miss Emily Bryant, against Louis J. Allen and Arthur A. Seaver, on an appeal from an order therein appointing a receiver of certain real property in the City of Yew York of which the…
1Opinion of the Court
Gaynob, J.:"
In England the decisions, including the case against the great advocate Scarlett, afterwards Lord Abinger (Hodgson v. Scarlett, 1 B. & Ald. 232), for a long time left it uncertain whether the privilege of counsel in respect of their statements in the conduct and trial of causes was absolute or qualified. The question was put at rest in 1883 by the Court of Appeal in Munster v. Lamb (11 Q. B. D. 588), where it was decided to be absolute. But in this state the privilege is only a qualified one, i. e. it extends only to statements which are material and pertinent to the case (Marsh…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Youmans v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Marsh v. . EllsworthNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
3Cited by2 opinions
- MacDonald v. Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'nNew York Supreme Court · 1904
- Southard v. Morris, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division1913