Cruikshank v. Bennett
New York Supreme Court
Action for damages for libel. Motion by the defendant for a< • bill of particulars “ which shall specify and show how and in what manner the plaintiff was injured in his vocation as physician, stating the names and addresses of any and all persons who had dealt with him or been his patients or who had employed him in his vocation of physician and who have been affected in any way by reason of the said alleged libel.”
Read the full summary
Action for damages for libel. Motion by the defendant for a< • bill of particulars “ which shall specify and show how and in what manner the plaintiff was injured in his vocation as physician, stating the names and addresses of any and all persons who had dealt with him or been his patients or who had employed him in his vocation of physician and who have been affected in any way by reason of the said alleged libel.” The publication is claimed' to be libellous in that it imputes an act, of adultery to the plaintiff, a physician. The allegation of damage is “ That by reason of said publication…
1Opinion of the Court
Gaynor, J.:
This motion seems to arise out of a misunderstanding of the law of evidence and of pleading in respect of damages in actions for libel. A publication in writing which *233the law presumes must do damage is called a libel per se. No-special damage need be alleged in the complaint or proved to-maintain an action thereon. An allegation of general damage-to reputation or tó business, or to both, suffices. Special damage may, however, be pleaded and proved in such an action and recovered in addition to general damage. A publication in "writing which the law will not presume must do damage,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bergmann v. . JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Hallock v. MillerNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Gates v. . New York Recorder Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Cady v. Brooklyn Union Publishing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1898
- American Multiple Fabric Co. v. Eureka Fire Hose Co.New York Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by7 opinions
- Meyerle v. Pioneer Publishing Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1920
- Smid v. BernardNew York Supreme Court · 1900
- Adams v. ScottSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1914
- Bell v. HeathertonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- Martin v. Press Publishing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.