Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory

13 Citing cases

  1. Liebel v. Montgomery Ward Co., Inc.

    62 P.2d 667 (Mont. 1936)   Cited 2 times

    ( Quinn v. Prudential Ins. Co., 116 Iowa, 522, 90 N.W. 349; Heralds of Liberty v. Rankin, 130 Miss. 698, 94 So. 849; Mulligan v. Cole, L.R. 10 Q.B. 549; Boynton v. Remington, 85 Mass. (3 Allen) 397; Baldwin v. Walser, 41 Mo. App. 243; Hatch v. Lane, 105 Mass. 394.) In the case of Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, Inc., (N.D.) 268 N.W. 400, a very recent case, the supreme court of North Dakota held that the mere allegation that the "plaintiff's reputation" and "his business and practice" were injured was insufficient as an allegation of special damages necessary in stating a cause of action for libel. Not every imputation of a breach of morals or good manners is actionable, nor is slander per se to be predicated upon mere vilification and abuse. (17 R.C.L., p. 349; McCue v. Equity Co-op. Pub. Co., 39 N.D. 190, 167 N.W. 225; Vinson v. O'Malley, 25 Ariz. 552, 220 P. 393, 37 A.L.R. 877; Wiley v. Oklahoma Press Pub. Co., 106 Okla. 52, 233 P. 224; 40 A.L.R. 573; Yankwich, Essays on Libel, p. 64.)

  2. Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory

    68 N.D. 425 (N.D. 1938)   Cited 2 times
    In 68 N.D. 425, 280 N.W. 879, we passed upon the sufficiency of the amended complaint with respect to the pleading of special damages.

    The case has been here before. See Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, 66 N.D. 578, 268 N.W. 400. On the former appeal an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint was reversed and the case was remanded with directions that the plaintiff be permitted to amend upon terms. He did amend, and the present appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to the amended complaint.

  3. Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory

    289 N.W. 101 (N.D. 1939)   Cited 14 times

    MORRIS, J. This is an action for libel. Upon a former appeal ( 66 N.D. 578, 268 N.W. 400) involving a demurrer to the complaint, we held that the matter alleged to be defamatory did not constitute libel per se, but that the complaint did allege a libel per quod, and suffiicently set forth facts constituting a defamatory publication. We further held that general damages do not result as a matter of course from the publication of defamatory matter that is not libelous per se and that the complaint was demurrable for failure to allege special damages.

  4. Peabody v. Barham

    52 Cal.App.2d 581 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)   Cited 25 times

    In order to determine whether it is libelous per se no resort may be had to any declaration as to the meaning of the words or as to the intention of their author; it must be construed apart from allegations of innuendo and inducement. ( Holway v. World Publishing Co., 171 Okla. 306 [ 44 P.2d 881]; Kassowitz v. Sentinel Co., 226 Wis. 468 [277 N.W. 177]; Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, 66 N.D. 578 [ 268 N.W. 400, 408]; Tulsa Tribune Co. v. Kight, 174 Okla. 359 [ 50 P.2d 350]; Grand v. Dreyfus, 122 Cal. 58 [54 P. 389]; Noral v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 40 Cal.App. (2d) 348 [ 104 P.2d 860].) Also in determining whether a publication is libelous per se, its language must be given the natural and popular construction of the average reader.

  5. Roethke v. North Dakota Taxpayers Ass'n

    10 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1943)   Cited 5 times

    The general rule is that in an action for libel the exact language of the defamatory publication must be set out in the complaint, and it is not sufficient to allege the publication in substance and effect. Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, 66 N.D. 578, 268 N.W. 400; 17 RCL 390. A publication is actionable per se when the language used therein is susceptible of but one meaning and that an opprobrious one. Tulsa Tribune Co. v. Kight, 174 Okla. 359, 50 P.2d 350; Rowan v. Gazette Printing Co. 74 Mont. 326, 239 P. 1035.

  6. Gough v. Tribune-Journal Co.

    73 Idaho 173 (Idaho 1952)   Cited 16 times

    In determining whether an article is libelous per se, the article, alone, must be considered, stripped of all insinuations, innuendoes, colloqium and explanatory circumstances. It must be considered in its entirety and be defamatory on its face. Wimmer v. Oklahoma Publishing Co., 151 Okl. 123, 1 P.2d 671; Towles v. Travelers Insurance Co., 282 Ky. 147, 137 S.W.2d 1110; Flake v. Greensboro News Co., 212 N.C. 780, 195 S.E. 55; Shaw Cleaners Dyers, Inc. v. Des Moines Dress Club, 215 Iowa 1130, 245 N.W. 231, 86 A.L.R. 839; Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, 66 N.D. 578, 268 N.W. 400; Ryan v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 3 Wn.2d 128, 100 P.2d 24. When a complaint fails to state a cause of action, it is not error to sustain a demurrer, without leave to amend, and dismiss the action where plaintiff made no application to amend.

  7. Gough v. Tribune-Journal Company

    75 Idaho 502 (Idaho 1954)   Cited 17 times

    The language of the article must be construed as it would be understood by a reader of ordinary intelligence and perception, and must be stripped of all insinuations, innuendos, colloquium, and explanatory circumstances. It must be considered in its entirety and be defamatory on its face. Gough v. Tribune-Journal Company, 73 Idaho 173, 249 P.2d 192; Corbett v. American Newspapers, 1 Terry 10, 40 Del. 10, 5 A.2d 245; Dilling v. Illinois Publishing Company, 340 Ill.App. 303, 91 N.E.2d 635; Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, 66 N.D. 578, 268 N.W. 400; Snavely v. Booth, 6 W.W.Harr. 378, 36 Del. 378, 176 A. 649. The article published in this case is not libelous per se. Gough v. Tribune-Journal Company, 73 Idaho 173, 249 P.2d 192; Barton v. Rogers, 21 Idaho 609, 123 P. 478, 40 L.R.A., N.S., 681; Jenness v. Co-operative Publishing Co., 36 Idaho 697, 213 P. 351; Sweeney v. Capital News Publishing Co., D.C.Idaho, 37 F. Supp. 355; Wimmer v. Oklahoma Publishing Co., 151 Okl. 123, 1 P.2d 671.

  8. Murphy v. Farmers Educational Cooperative Union

    72 N.W.2d 636 (N.D. 1955)   Cited 1 times

    The general rule is that a defamatory publication is libelous per se when, without aid of innuendo, it must be presumed to expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or to cause him to be shunned, or to have a tendency to injure him in his occupation. Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Director, 66 N.D. 578, 268 N.W. 400. If the publication is libelous per se, no innuendo is necessary. The question in the instant case is therefore whether the language in the published article is in fact libelous per se.

  9. Brown v. Kitterman

    443 S.W.2d 146 (Mo. 1969)   Cited 40 times
    In Brown, a writing critical of the operation of a community center did not defame plaintiff although plaintiff was the manager of the center and owned the building in which it was located.

    In the above article it is pointed out that in those states where the issue has been squarely presented, other than in the one New York case, the ruling has been that the allegation of special damages is essential to the statement of a claim for libel per quod. See Ilitzky v. Goodman, 57 Ariz. 216, 112 P.2d 860; McBride v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 5 Cir., 196 F.2d 187 (applying Florida law); Karrigan v. Valentine, 184 Kan. 783, 339 P.2d 52; Axton Fisher Tobacco Co. v. Evening Post Co., 169 Ky. 64, 183 S.W. 269, L.R.A. 1916E, 667; Campbell v. Post Pub. Co., 94 Mont. 12, 20 P.2d 1063; Chase v. New Mexico Pub. Co., 53 N.M. 145, 203 P.2d 594; Flake v. Greensboro News Co., 212 N.C. 780, 195 S.E. 55; Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubble Law Directory, 66 N.D. 578, 268 N.W. 400; Moore v. P.W. Publishing Co., 3 Ohio St.2d 183, 209 N.E.2d 412; Hargrove v. Oklahoma Press Pub. Co., 130 Okl. 76, 265 P. 635; Fite v. Oklahoma Pub. Co., 146 Okl. 150, 293 P. 1073; Fry v. McCord, 95 Tenn. 678, 33 S.W. 568; Electric Furnace Corp. v. Deering Milliken Research Corp., 6 Cir., 325 F.2d 761 (applying Tennessee law); Yelle v. Cowles Publishing Co., 46 Wash. 2d 105, 278 P.2d 671, 53 A.L.R.2d 1. See also the cases cited in the footnotes to 53 C.J.S. Libel and Slander ยง 170(c). There may be some question concerning the historical development of the rule (see Henn, Libel-By-Extrinsic-Fact, 47 Cornell L. Quart. p. 14), but after careful consideration of the articles and cases relied on by plaintiff and those cited above, we conclude that the requirement that special damages must be alleged when the published words are not libelous per se is sound.

  10. Emo v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co.

    183 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 1971)   Cited 20 times

    Thus, in the case at bar, there was a publication to Mrs. Emo, the addressee of the letter, who was a third party, and a party other than the defamed. In paragraph 3 of the syllabus in Murphy v. Farmers Educational Cooperative Union, 72 N.W.2d 636 (N.D. 1955), and in paragraph 3 of the syllabus in Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, 66 N.D. 578, 268 N.W. 400 (1936), this court defined libel per se as follows: "A defamatory publication is libelous per se when without the aid of innuendo it must be presumed to expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or cause him to be shunned or avoided, or have a tendency to injure him in his occupation."