Cook v. Cook

100 Mass. 194
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 100 Mass. 194 (Cook v. Cook) 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
Cook v. Cook, 100 Mass. 194 (Mass. 1868).

Opinion

Wells, J.

This action can be maintained only upon the ground of special damages suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the words set out as constituting the slander. To sustain the action on this ground, it is necessary that the declaration should set forth precisely in what way such special damages resulted from the words relied on. It is not sufficient to allege generally that the plaintiff has suffered special damages; 01 ■ that he has been put to great costs and expenses thereby; or that he has had to pay one hundred dollars in costs to the othei party in the suit in reference to which the words are alleged to have been spoken in the form of testimony. It must be made [195]*195to appear, by proper averments, how these special damages were occasioned by the words alleged to have been uttered falsely and maliciously. We may suppose that the plaintiff was a witness in her own behalf in the suit referred to, and that tbe case may have depended upon her own testimony; that, by reason of her impeachment by the testimony of this defendant, tbe jury were led to disbelieve the plaintiff; and that thereby she was defeated in tbe action and subjected to costs. But there are no allegations of this sort; and, without proper allegations to show the connection, it is not to be inferred, nor supplied argumentatively. Swan v. Tappan, 5 Cush. 104. Bloss v. Tobey, 2 Pick. 320. Snell v. Snow, 13 Met. 278. The declaration is insufficient in this respect, and the demurrer must be sustained.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Related

Ellsworth v. Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, Inc.
268 N.W. 400 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1936)
Morrill v. Crawford
179 N.E. 609 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Fite v. Oklahoma Publishing Co.
1930 OK 554 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Gray
1929 OK 309 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Craig v. Proctor
118 N.E. 647 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
McKenney v. Carpenter
141 P. 779 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Wisner v. Nichols
143 N.W. 1020 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1913)
N. S. Sherman MacH. Co. v. Dun
1911 OK 101 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Reporters' Ass'n of America v. Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n
79 N.E. 710 (New York Court of Appeals, 1906)
Doyle v. Kirby
68 N.E. 843 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Kyd v. Cook
76 N.W. 524 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
Ledlie v. Wallen
42 P. 289 (Montana Supreme Court, 1895)
Morasse v. Brochu
8 L.R.A. 524 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Wilson v. Dubois
29 N.W. 68 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1886)
Pollard v. Lyon
91 U.S. 225 (Supreme Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 Mass. 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-cook-mass-1868.