Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamages
plaintiffdamageswillsustained

Related Cases

Cerasani v. Sony Corp., 991 F.Supp. 343
View Case »
Stachulski v. Apple New England, LLC, 171 N.H. 158, 191 A.3d 1231, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 20,386
View Case »
Scott v. Hull, 22 Ohio App.2d 141, 259 N.E.2d 160, 51 O.O.2d 289
View Case »
Russick v. Hicks, 85 F.Supp. 281
View Case »
Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568, 32 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 439
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wilson v. Dubois, 35 Minn. 471, 29 N.W. 68, 59 Am.Rep. 335

Facts

The plaintiff, a horse-dealer, owned a race-horse that he was attempting to sell for $1,000. On January 30, 1886, the defendant, who owned a newspaper, published a statement claiming the horse was 21 years old, which the plaintiff contended was false as the horse was only 12. The plaintiff argued that this false statement led to the breakdown of negotiations with potential buyers, resulting in a significant loss in the horse's sale value.

At said time plaintiff had “a chance to sell, and was negotiating a sale,” of said horse for $1,000, and but for said false publication would have sold him for that sum; and that, solely because of said false publication, “plaintiff lost the chance to sell said horse; the negotiations *** were broken up by said parties who contemplated purchasing; no one will pay for it more than $500; and plaintiff cannot sell his said horse for more than $500;” and that plaintiff has accordingly suffered damages in the sum of $500.

Issue

Does the complaint state a case under the rule regarding false and malicious statements that cause special damages?

Does the complaint state a case under this rule?

Rule

False and malicious statements that disparage property are actionable if they result in special damages to the owner, and it is essential to allege a loss of sale to a particular person.

False and malicious statements, disparaging an article of property, when followed, as a natural, reasonable, and proximate result, by special damage the owner, are actionable.

Analysis

The court found that while the statement was indeed false and prima facie disparaging, the complaint failed to allege sufficient special damages. The plaintiff did not specify a particular person to whom a sale could have been made, which is necessary to establish a cause of action for special damages in cases of disparagement.

The court found that while the statement was indeed false and prima facie disparaging, the complaint failed to allege sufficient special damages.

Conclusion

The court approved the order sustaining the demurrer, indicating that the complaint did not adequately state a cause of action due to the lack of specific allegations regarding special damages.

Order sustaining demurrer approved, and case remanded for further proceedings.

Who won?

Defendant prevailed because the court found that the plaintiff's complaint lacked the necessary specificity regarding special damages, which is essential for the action.

The action is in the nature of one for slander of title, (Western C. M. Co. v. Lawes C. M. Co., L. R. 9 Exch. 218,) and hence it is not the ordinary action for slander, properly so called, “but an action on the case, for special damages sustained by reason of the speaking” complained of.

You must be