Brown v. Radebaugh
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $5,000 for libel. The case was tried before Harrison, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of defendants. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. The receipt containing the libel was not privileged communication and the question should not have been submitted to the jury.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $5,000 for libel. The case was tried before Harrison, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of defendants. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. The receipt containing the libel was not privileged communication and the question should not have been submitted to the jury. Quinn v. Scott, 22 Minn. 456. A corresponding interest or.duty in the person to whom the communication is made is essential. Bailey v. Holland, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 184; Norfolk v. Davis, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 306; Hosmer v.…
1Opinion of the Court
COLLINS, J.2
This was an action for libel, in which the verdict was for defendants. Ten assignments of error are set forth in the brief, some of which need no consideration.'
1. By the first, counsel question a ruling of the court whereby it refused to strike out part of the testimony of the witness Love-land, to the effect that the only feeling exhibited by any of the parties to this controversy when the matter was being talked over the day before the publication of the alleged libel seemed to be ' one of regret. The statement was volunteered by the witness, but he had, in substance, stated it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. McNicholasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. NorgaardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- Olson v. AuboleeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Krulic v. PetcoffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Peterson v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924