Newell v. How
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action for libel, brought in the district court for Scott county, the ■complaint containing thirteen counts, each charging a distinct libel. The defendant demurred to each count, as failing to state a cause of •action. The demurrer was sustained by Macdonald, L, as to the 2d, 4th and 13th causes of action, and overruled as to the others, and the plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
In an action for libel, when the language published is not actionable per se, but requires explanation by some extrinsic matter to make it actionable, the complaint must allege such extrinsic matter which, coupled with the language published, affects its construction and shows that it conveys the actionable meaning which plaintiff claims for it. Townshend on Slander & Libel, § 308. The publications in this case, which constitute the alleged libels, were regarding the plaintiff in the special capacity of a merchant, and in reference to his financial standing and credit as such. In those trades…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Minter v. Bradstreet Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Hirshfield v. Fort Worth National Bank.Texas Supreme Court · 1892
- Bee Publishing Co. v. World Publishing Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1900
- Simons v. BurnhamMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Meyerson v. HurlbutCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.