Duffy v. Gray

52 Mo. 528
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 52 Mo. 528 (Duffy v. Gray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Duffy v. Gray, 52 Mo. 528 (Mo. 1873).

Opinion

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action for slander. The actionable words charged in the petition are, “ Duffy & Kincer are damned thieves and swindlers.”

Duffy & Kincer were partners, doing business as merchants under that name, the individual members being, plaintiff' and one Abner Kincer. They had brought a joint action against the defendant for injury to their business on account of these words, and recovered a judgment for one dollar and costs, which had been paid by the defendant.

The defendant set up this former recovery and satisfaction, as a bar to this action.

On the trial the court ruled out this defense, and this ruling of the court presents the only material point for our consideration.

In my judgment, the former recovery and satisfaction were [529]*529not admissible, either as a bar, or in mitigation of damages. This action is for a personal injury to the character of the plaintiff, and the former suit was for a joint injury to the trade and business of the firm of Duffy & Kincer.” The members of the firm could have no legal interest whatever in the personal character of each other.

The slander to the individual character of each member of the firm could not be a joint tort. It was necessarily a separate and distinct injury, for which a several, and not a joint action, could be maintained. (See also, Townsend on Slander, §§ 185 and 303; Haythorn et al. vs. Lawson, 8 C. and P., 196.)

The only damages the partnership could have recovered was for the injury to their joint trade and business. (See Col. on Part., § 680 ; Story on Part., §§ 256, 257; Townsend on Slander, 381.)

Let the judgment be affirmed;

Judge Wagner absent, the other Judges concur.

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

Related

Lee v. Guettler
391 S.W.2d 311 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1965)
Henderson v. United States Radiator Corporation
78 F.2d 674 (Tenth Circuit, 1935)
Adams v. City of Duluth
221 N.W. 8 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1928)
Bernstein v. Simon
235 P. 375 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1925)
Lester v. Hawkins
181 S.W. 481 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Hansen Mercantile Co. v. Wyman, Partridge & Co.
117 N.W. 926 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 Mo. 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duffy-v-gray-mo-1873.