Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Fitch

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1871No. 1,724PublishedCited by 69 opinions

the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, City and .Cóinty of San Francisco. The defendants were the editors and proprietors of the Hoening Bulletin, published in ^an, Francisco. The plaintiff and several others owned a Mver mine in the State of Nevada, and were incorporated under the name of the Santiago Mining* LLmpány, and the plaintiff became one of the trustees of the corporation. The plaintiff owned and =-T§@M"sfóck in the corporation.

Read the full summary

the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, City and .Cóinty of San Francisco. The defendants were the editors and proprietors of the Hoening Bulletin, published in ^an, Francisco. The plaintiff and several others owned a Mver mine in the State of Nevada, and were incorporated under the name of the Santiago Mining* LLmpány, and the plaintiff became one of the trustees of the corporation. The plaintiff owned and =-T§@M"sfóck in the corporation. On the 3d day of November, 1863, the following article was published in the Bulletin: “The Story of a Promising Mine. “ A year ago, or more or…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

If the alleged libel was actionable per se, it was unnecessary to prove the colloquium in order to make out a prima facie case for the plaintiff*. When a libel is not actionable on its face, but has a covert, libelous meaning, a colloquium is necessary to explain the subject matter, and to bring to light the true interpretation of the libelous words. In such cases the colloquium must be proved. But in the present case the alleged libel is actionable on its face, and it was unnecessary to ' prove the colloquium.. FTo unprejudiced person of ordinary intelligence can…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Inman v. FosterNew York Supreme Court · 1832
  2. Treat v. BrowningSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822

3Cited by69 opinions

  1. Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co.California Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Davis v. HearstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit LinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Scott v. Times-Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Tingley v. Times Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1907

64 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