Chesley v. Tompson

137 Mass. 136, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 202
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedApril 1, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 137 Mass. 136 (Chesley v. Tompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chesley v. Tompson, 137 Mass. 136, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 202 (Mass. 1884).

Opinion

Field, J.

The plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for mental suffering caused by the publication of the slander. Hastings v. Stetson, 130 Mass. 76. Marble v. Chapin, 132 Mass. 225. Mahoney v. Belford, 132 Mass. 393.

In all cases in which the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for mental suffering, evidence of the actual suffering caused by the act of the defendant is admissible; and, since parties have been admitted as witnesses, the testimony of the plaintiff as to his sufferings is admissible, for he knows best what he has suffered. His interest in the action only affects his credibility. Damages for mental suffering naturally resulting from the publication of the slander are not special damages, which must be specifically alleged in the declaration. The question objected to was therefore competent under the pleadings; and, if any part of the answer was not responsive, or related to matters other than mental suffering, the defendant did not specifically object to that. The answer was objected to “ for the reasons before stated,” which were that the question was “ incompetent and in- ■ admissible under the pleadings.” Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Stone v. Essex County Newspapers, Inc.
311 N.E.2d 52 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1974)
Urban v. Hartford Gas Co.
93 A.2d 292 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1952)
Curley v. Curtis Pub. Co.
48 F. Supp. 27 (D. Massachusetts, 1942)
Themo v. New England Newspaper Publishing Co.
27 N.E.2d 753 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Earl v. Times-Mirror Co.
196 P. 57 (California Supreme Court, 1921)
Pion v. Caron
129 N.E. 369 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Craig v. Proctor
118 N.E. 647 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Washington Post Co. v. Chaloner
47 App. D.C. 66 (D.C. Circuit, 1917)
Bavington v. Robinson
95 A. 1067 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1915)
Starks v. Comer
67 So. 440 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Ott v. Murphy
141 N.W. 463 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1913)
Mills v. Flynn
137 N.W. 1082 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)
Post Pub. Co. v. Peck
199 F. 6 (First Circuit, 1912)
Lopes v. Connolly
97 N.E. 80 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Garrison v. Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n
74 Misc. 622 (New York Supreme Court, 1911)
S. S. McClure Co. v. Philipp
170 F. 910 (Second Circuit, 1909)
Butler v. Hoboken Printing & Publishing Co.
62 A. 272 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1905)
Finger v. Pollack
74 N.E. 317 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Enquirer Co. v. Johnston
72 F. 443 (Seventh Circuit, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 Mass. 136, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesley-v-tompson-mass-1884.