Hartnett v. Goddard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, in three counts, for libel and malicious injury to the plaintiff’s business. The answer contained a general denial, and set out that the alleged libellous matter was true, and was published without malice, and also that it was a privileged communication. Trial in the Superior Court, before Sherman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows.
Read the full summary
Tort, in three counts, for libel and malicious injury to the plaintiff’s business. The answer contained a general denial, and set out that the alleged libellous matter was true, and was published without malice, and also that it was a privileged communication. Trial in the Superior Court, before Sherman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. It appeared that the defendant was a member of the Plumbers’ Supply Association of New England, a corporation formed under the laws of this Commonwealth for the purpose, as stated in its certificate of incorporation, “ of…
1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.
This case in some respects resembles Weston v. Barnicoat, 175' Mass. 454, and in other respects differs from it. Th,e machinery of the association, which the defendant, who was a member thereof, set in motion, did not contemplate an absolute boycott, as in Weston v. Barnicoat, but merely that a person who did not pay his debts could not buy of members of the association, except by paying cash before delivery. The bill of exceptions states that when the question arose between the parties, which formed the basis of the defendant’s acts, the plaintiff was owing the defendant #500 and over. As we…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Barrett v. MurphyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Jones v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Commonwealth v. NashMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
3Cited by1 opinion
- Conklin v. John Howard Industrial HomeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916