Hallock v. Miller
New York Supreme Court
This was a motion to set aside a nonsuit, and for a new trial in an action of slander. The words charged in the declaration were, “ He [the plaintiff] is engaged in serving writs upon the anti-renters and catching indians,” Ac.
Read the full summary
This was a motion to set aside a nonsuit, and for a new trial in an action of slander. The words charged in the declaration were, “ He [the plaintiff] is engaged in serving writs upon the anti-renters and catching indians,” Ac. The plaintiff alleged, that in consequence of the speaking of the words by the defendant, divers persons, being anti-renters, refused to stop at his tavern as customers, and especially one Clark Bush, Rufus Townsend, Alanson Hagedorn, and one Russel, and divers other persons. On the trial, Hagedorn was called by the plaintiff to prove the special damage laid in the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Paige, J.
The evidence that persons, not mentioned in the declaration, had refused to patronize plaintiff’s tavern, in consequence of the speaking of the words by the defendant, was clearly inadmissible. The plaintiff could not prove that any persons, not named in his declaration, left off stopping at his house, in consequence of the words spoken. The rule is so laid down in 2 Phil. Ev. 248, and in Hartley v. Herring, (8 Term Rep. 133.) In Hartley v. Herring Lord Kenyon says, that a plaintiff who brings an action for slander, by which he lost his customers in trade, ought, in his…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Keenholts v. BeckerNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Herrick v. LaphamNew York Supreme Court · 1813
3Cited by19 opinions
- Bergmann v. . JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Swain v. . SchieffelinNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Wilson v. DuboisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Smid v. BernardNew York Supreme Court · 1900
- King v. Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.