Van Heusen v. Argenteau
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendant, De Mercy Argenteau, from a judgment of the'Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 8th day of November, 1907, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term, overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint, upon the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
1Opinion of the Court
McLaughlin, J.:
I think the article complained of is libelous per se. It tends to disgrace or bring into ridicule and contempt the person to whom it relates. (Morey v. M. J. Assn., 123 N. Y. 207; Stokes v. Stokes, 76 Hun, 314.) It does not identify the plaintiff- as-the person libeled, but the complaint alleges.it was published of and concerning her. Being libelous per se and not identifying the person libeled, it was unnecessary to allege in the complaint “ any extrinsic fact, for the purpose of showing the application to the plaintiff, of the defamatory matter,” inasmuch as the allegation…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Morrison v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
- Morey v. Morning Journal Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Fleischmann v. . BennettNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Weston v. . Commercial Advertiser Assn.New York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Nunnally v. Tribune Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nolan v. Standard Publishing Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1923