Burnham v. Franklin
New York Supreme Court
Motion to strike out part of defendant’s answer as irrelevant and redundant. The plaintiff is the president of a life insurance company and the defendant is the publisher of a magazine which published concerning the former the article complained of. The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGiegerich, J.
This is an action for libel. The article complained of is as follows: “ In the published insurance reports the annual statement for the year 1900 of the Mutual Reserve the item ‘ Total income during the year ’ appears as follows: Connecticut insurance report, $14,623,413.85; Wisconsin insurance report, $14,304,983.54; Hew York insurance report, $5,333,969.80; Massachusetts insurance report, $4,438,926.95. Deducting the $8,158,523.52 of ‘ liens/ which the Massachusetts commissioner ‘ knocked out/ there would still be a discrepancy of $2,025,963.38 in the ‘ total income ’ as reported to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mattice v. . WilcoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Bradner v. . FaulknerNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Stieffel v. TolhurstAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Palmer v. New York News Publishing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Blaut v. BlautNew York Supreme Court · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Russo v. HowardNew York Supreme Court · 1926
- Barber v. DavidsonNew York Supreme Court · 1909
- Burnham v. FranklinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905