White v. Delavan
New York Supreme Court
Libel. The declaration in this case is substantially the same as in William White v. Delavan, IT Wendell, 49. The defendant put in two pleas of justification, to which the plaintiff demurred. It was admitted on the argument that the pleas were bad, but it was insisted that the defendant was notwithstanding entitled to judgment inasmuch as the declaration was radically defective.
Read the full summary
Libel. The declaration in this case is substantially the same as in William White v. Delavan, IT Wendell, 49. The defendant put in two pleas of justification, to which the plaintiff demurred. It was admitted on the argument that the pleas were bad, but it was insisted that the defendant was notwithstanding entitled to judgment inasmuch as the declaration was radically defective. In answer to which it was urged that by pleading over, the defects in the declara-* tian were cured, and that consequently judgment ought to be rendered for the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cowen, J.
The declaration in White v. Delavan, 17 Wendell, 49, was held had in substance, because the plaintiff being- but one of a class, and not named, he could not, in,the nature of the libel, apply it to himself. In other words, it was. a libel upon nobody, because none of the class were named. It is different in Fidler v. Delavan, 20 Wendell, 57, because there the plaintiff was named; and undoubtedly any defect of form in .identifying him would be cured by pleading over, as the chief justice said in that case. He cited the authorities to that point, and they are now pressed…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fidler v. DelavanNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- White v. DelavanNew York Supreme Court · 1837