Legal Opinion · Dissent

Marr v. Putnam

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1952Published

1DissentLatourette, J.

I dissent for the reason that I am of the opinion that the nonsuit granted by the trial court was proper. It is the law, recognized by the majority opinion, that two parties cannot join in a personal libel action because the action is several and not joint. The following is set out in such opinion:

“'While it is well settled that when words are spoken of two or more persons they cannot join in an action for the words because the wrong done to one is no wrong to the other, a well recognized exception to this rule is where defamatory words are published of partners in the way of their business.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Flower v. BarnekoffOregon Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Merrill v. Post Publishing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
  3. Allen v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
  4. Salem King's Products Co. v. RampOregon Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Speyer v. School District No. 1Supreme Court of Colorado · 1927

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API