Forsyth v. Edmiston

2 Abb. Pr. 430, 5 Duer 653
CourtThe Superior Court of New York City
DecidedFebruary 15, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 2 Abb. Pr. 430 (Forsyth v. Edmiston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Forsyth v. Edmiston, 2 Abb. Pr. 430, 5 Duer 653 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1856).

Opinion

SlossoN, J.

I think the demurrer well taken in this, that the expressions charged to have been spoken, are not alleged to have been the identical words spoken, or even as in substance the words spoken which, perhaps, would be good, but as words and statements of a certain tenor, import, and effect, which is bad. (Maitland v. Joldney, 2 East., 427; Cook v. Cox, 3 Maule & S., 110; Ward v. Clarke, 2 Johns. R., 10).

As a general rule an action of slander will not lie against two, though an action for composing and publishing a libel may. (Chitty's Plead., 74; Bul. N. P. 5; Johns. R. 32).

Whether, where the slander is alleged to have been uttered in pursuance of a conspiracy between the defendants, a count [432]*432to that effect would be good, is unnecessary to decide, since the demurrer is sustained on the other ground ; but I am inclined to the opinion that such a count would be good.

There must be judgment for the defendants on the demurrer with costs — with liberty to plaintiff to amend his count within twenty days.

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

Related

Goldman v. Nu-Boro Park Cleaners, Inc.
182 Misc. 295 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)
Donohue v. Carroll
179 A.D. 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
Deddrick v. Mallery
143 A.D. 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)
Van v. Lewis
41 Misc. 355 (New York Supreme Court, 1903)
Drohan v. O'Brien
76 A.D. 265 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
Germ-Proof Filter Co. v. Pasteur-Chamberland Filter Co.
30 N.Y.S. 584 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Kenyon v. Cameron
20 A. 233 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Abb. Pr. 430, 5 Duer 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forsyth-v-edmiston-nysuperctnyc-1856.