Reitan v. Goebel
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Slander. The complaint charges the defendant with having spoken words importing incontinence on the part of the plaintiff, an unmarried woman. The answer is a general denial. The action was tried in the district' court for Clay county before Stearns, J., and a jury, and plaintiff had a verdict of $675. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
Read the full summary
Slander. The complaint charges the defendant with having spoken words importing incontinence on the part of the plaintiff, an unmarried woman. The answer is a general denial. The action was tried in the district' court for Clay county before Stearns, J., and a jury, and plaintiff had a verdict of $675. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial. The witnesses for plaintiff, after testifying to the uttering by defendant of the slander charged, were permitted to testify as to other slanderous words uttered by defendant at the same time.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The ground of an action for words, in the absence of special damage, is the immediate and natural tendency of the words themselves to produce injury to the person of whom they are spoken. And in no other case can it be more fairly presumed that the scandal, if believed, will produce injury than where an unmarried female is charged with incontinence. In England the reason originally assigned for holding such words not actionable per se was that the person slandered might institute a suit in the spiritual court; and that, if an action were to be entertained in a temporal court, the party would…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Hammersten v. ReilingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- Cushing ex rel. Cushing v. HedermanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Johnson v. ForceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Larson v. R. B. Wrigley Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Quist v. KiichliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.