Advertiser Co. v. Jones

Supreme Court of Alabama

Advertiser Co. v. Jones

169 Ala. 670

DecidedJuly 1, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 169 Ala. 670 (Advertiser Co. v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Advertiser Co. v. Jones, 169 Ala. 670 (Ala. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, J.

While I concur in the reversal of this case for the failure to give charge 12, requested by the defendant, I prefer to base my conclusion upon a theory other than the fact that the code form of the complaint is not broad enough to cover damages implied by,law, as resulting from the publication of matter libelous per se. I am willing to concede that general, actual, as distinguished from special, damages could be recovered under the complaint in question; but there ivas no proof of any actual damages except such as might arise by implication of the law, and whether or not there Avere any Avas a question for the jury. In other Avords, the charge hypothesized a defense to punitive damages, authorized a recovery for nominal damages, and left it for the jury to determine whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to recover actual damages. It was not abstract, and asserted a plain legal proposition, and should have been given.

McClellan, J., concurs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ANDERSON, J.

While I concur in the reversal of this case for the failure to give charge 12, requested by the defendant, I prefer to base my conclusion upon a theory other than the fact that the code form of the complaint is not broad enough to cover damages implied by,law, as resulting from the publication of matter libelous per se. I am willing to concede that general, actual, as distinguished from special, damages could be recovered under the complaint in question; but there ivas no proof of any actual damages except such as might arise by implication of the law, and whether or not there Avere any Avas a question for the jury. In other Avords, the charge hypothesized a defense to punitive damages, authorized a recovery for nominal damages, and left it for the jury to determine whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to recover actual damages. It was not abstract, and asserted a plain legal proposition, and should have been given.

McClellan, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 Ala. 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/advertiser-co-v-jones-ala-1910.