Salinger v. Lusk
New York Supreme Court
The complaint sets forth several sets of slanderous words, which it alleges defendant uttered and published of and concerning the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
The complaint sets forth several sets of slanderous words, which it alleges defendant uttered and published of and concerning the plaintiff. The answer denies the allegation contained in the complaint, that on or about the fourth day of May last, in the city of Williamsburgh in the county of Kings, he, the defendant, did speak, utter and publish, of and concerning the plaintiff, in a public manner, and in the presence and hearing of divers persons, the following false, malicious and defamatory words, to wit: “ that (meaning the plaintiff) is Salinger.” “ He (meaning plaintiff) has stolen the…
1Opinion of the Court
Barculo, Justice.
That this answer, upon general principles of pleading, is clearly bad, can not be doubted. It simply states that the defendant did not utter the precise words, at the precise time, and in the particular place and manner stated in the complaint. How much of the plaintiff’s complaint is true, the defendant does not admit nor deny. He simply swears that it is not all true. This answer may, therefore, without being literally false, leave a good cause of action undenied. If we tolerate this mode of pleading, we abolish the substantial benefits of a verification. For if…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Davis & Brooks v. MapesNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
3Cited by5 opinions
- Scovill v. BarneyOregon Supreme Court · 1872
- McClave v. GibbThe Superior Court of New York City · 1895
- Schaetzel v. Germantown Farmers' Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
- McClave v. GibbThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1895
- Myatt v. Saratoga County Mutual InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1854