State ex rel. Harriman v. Reynolds
Supreme Court of Missouri
Certiorari. (1) A simple charge of robbery, unexplained by anything else in the statement complained of, is actionable per se. Jones v. Murray, 167 Mo. 25. (2) The above proposition is well settled by numerous other authorities. Klinck v. Colby, 46 N. Y. 427, 7 Am.
Read the full summary
Certiorari. (1) A simple charge of robbery, unexplained by anything else in the statement complained of, is actionable per se. Jones v. Murray, 167 Mo. 25. (2) The above proposition is well settled by numerous other authorities. Klinck v. Colby, 46 N. Y. 427, 7 Am. Rep. 360; Smiddy v. Pearlstein, 201 Mass. 246; Slow-man v. Dutton, 10 Bing. 402 (Eng.); Rowcliffe v. Edmonds, 7 M. & W. 12, 4 Jur. 684; Newell on Slander & Libel (3 Ed.), secs. 151-153; 25 Cyc. 286. (3) The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that words which impute or charge the commission of a crime, and especially a felony, are…
1Opinion of the CourtFaris, J.
This is an original proceeding by certiorari, whereby it is sought to bring up for quashal, the opinion and record of the St. Louis Court of Appeals in a cause lately pending in that court, wherein relator William Harriman was respondent, and one T. M. Sayman, was appellant. [Harriman v. Sayman, 193 S. W. 1001.]
The said case of Harriman v. Sayman was an action for slander. Upon a trial thereof in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis plaintiff had judgment for $1500 actual damages, and $3500 punitive damages. From this judgment defendant therein after the conventional motions appealed.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Callahan v. IngramSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Jones v. MurraySupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Rail v. National Newspaper Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
- Harriman v. SaymanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1917
3Cited by2 opinions
- Connell v. A. C. L. Haase & Sons Fish Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- Allen v. Edward Light Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1921