King v. Patterson
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On error to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff below, Emma Patterson, was a trader engaged in the retail clothing business, at Red Bank, in this state. The defendants, King and Douglas, in connection with others, conduct a mercantile agency in New York city. Mrs. Patterson sued the defendants for the publication of defamatory words affecting her circumstances and financial condition. The defence was that the publication in question was a privileged communication.
Read the full summary
On error to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff below, Emma Patterson, was a trader engaged in the retail clothing business, at Red Bank, in this state. The defendants, King and Douglas, in connection with others, conduct a mercantile agency in New York city. Mrs. Patterson sued the defendants for the publication of defamatory words affecting her circumstances and financial condition. The defence was that the publication in question was a privileged communication. The assignment of errors was upon the rulings and the charge of the trial judge.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Depue, J.
Defamatory words uttered in a privileged communication are not actionable unless there be proof of actual malice. If such words are uttered bona fide on a privileged occasion, in an honest belief that they are true, the party injured is remediless. Spill v. Maule, L. R., 4 Exch. 232; Clark v. Molyneux, 3 Q. B. Div. 237. A wrong or malicious motive is essential to the action where the communication is privileged.
On the other hand, where the publication imputes a crime, so as to be actionable per se, or is actionable only on averment and proof…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Philadelphia, Wilmington, & Baltimore Railroad v. QuigleySupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- Sunderlin v. . BradstreetNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Ormsby v. . DouglassNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Hatch v. LaneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by35 opinions
- Abraham v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Florida · 1906
- Sokolay v. EdlinNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
- Fees v. TrowSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
- Mick v. American Dental Assn.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
- Mangum Electric Co. v. BorderSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.