Lydiard v. Wingate
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county against W. S. Win-gate, O. 0. Lundquist, G. A. Gruman, B. T. Allen and George B. Saf-ford, to recover $28,000 for malicious publication of the letter which is quoted in the opinion. From an order, Leary, .J., overruling the demurrer of defendants to the complaint on the ground that the facts stated therein did not constitute a cause of action, defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
The court in overruling a demurrer to the complaint herein certifies the question involved to be important and doubtful. The action is for libel. The complaint after alleging that defendants maliciously published by circular letter and in certain named papers in Minnesota, “and in other newspapers generally circulated in the state * * * of and concerning plaintiff, these words”: (omitting the caption of the letter head showing that it came from the headquarters of the Anti-Saloon League and naming the officers thereof)
“Brewers’ Plot Promptly Unearthed.
“Scarcely had the votes, cast in the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Morse v. Times-Republican Printing Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Sillars v. CollierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Marks v. BakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Arnold v. IngramWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Tawney v. Simonson, Whitcomb & Hurley Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sweeney v. PattersonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- City of Duluth v. CervenySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Field Research Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Hammersten v. ReilingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- Streeter v. Emmons County Farmers PressNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.