Schieffelin v. Hylan
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, William J. Schieffelin, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 11th day of September, 1922, as denies his motion to strike out the fourth defense in the third amended answer, made upon the ground that it is insufficient in law upon the face thereof.
1Opinion of the Court
Clarke', P. J.:
This is an action for libel. The third amended answer, for a first separate and affirmative defense, claims an absolute privilege; for a second affirmative defense, claims a qualified privilege. The third separate and affirmative defense also alleges a qualified privilege. The fourth defense, which is here attacked, sets up justification. The fifth separate and partial defense sets up facts by way of mitigation. The fourth defense, namely, the one alleging justification, is attacked as insufficient in law because, although pleaded as a complete defense, it is not as broad as…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bingham v. . GaynorNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- More v. . BennettNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Thompson v. . HalbertNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Lanpher v. . ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Bingham v. GaynorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- New York Society for the Suppression of Vice v. Macfadden Publications, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1929
- Schieffelin v. HylanNew York Supreme Court · 1925
- Levy v. AnnenbergNew York Supreme Court · 1931