From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

New York and West. W. Co. v. Morning J. Assoc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1896
7 App. Div. 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

Opinion

June Term, 1896.

Present — Van Brunt, P.J., Barrett, Patterson and Ingraham, JJ.


Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. —


The words claimed to be libelous are not in terms alleged to be spoken of and concerning the plaintiff. The learned judge below held that equivalent words are alleged. This, however, does not seem to be borne out by what was actually alleged. The allegation was that the words were published with the malicious intent and purpose to injure the business of the plaintiff. This is not an averment that the words were spoken of and concerning the plaintiff nor is it equivalent thereto. The same observations apply to the other statements referred to by the learned judge. It is quite clear at all events that whether the words stated were equivalent to the necessary words was not so evident as to justify the treatment of the demurrer as frivolous. The parties should at least have been permitted to argue the demurrer in the ordinary course at Special Term. The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

New York and West. W. Co. v. Morning J. Assoc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1896
7 App. Div. 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)
Case details for

New York and West. W. Co. v. Morning J. Assoc

Case Details

Full title:New York and Westchester Water Company, Respondent, v. The Morning Journal…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 1, 1896

Citations

7 App. Div. 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

Citing Cases

Jacquelin v. Morning Journal Assn

This, however, is no longer necessary under our Code system of pleading, which provides (Code Civ. Proc. §…