Foye v. Guardian Printing & Publishing Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York

Foye v. Guardian Printing & Publishing Co.

109 F. 368, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4792

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York

DecidedMay 28, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 109 F. 368 (Foye v. Guardian Printing & Publishing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foye v. Guardian Printing & Publishing Co., 109 F. 368, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4792 (circtedny 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, District Judge.

The plaintiff demurs to the tenth division of the answer, which is to the effect that service in this district on the treasurer of the defendant, a corporation resident in the state of New Jersey, did not give this court jurisdiction of the corporation; and also to the eleventh division of the answer, which is to the effect that an act relating to libels (Laws N. J. 1898, c. 204) had not been complied with by the plaintiff, in that he had not previous to the commencement of the action requested the retraction of the libelous charge. The failure to make such request by the terms of the statute precludes recovery beyond actual damages proved and specially alleged, unless the plaintiff prove malice in fact. The defendant has pleaded the statute as a separate and further defense, and in mitigation of any damages to which the defendant would otherwise be entitled. The defendant might properly plead the statute in mitigation of damages, and the statement that it has also pleaded it in defense may be unnecessary and perhaps improper, if the word “defense” be used in its technical sense. But in any'case the statute can only he used for the purposes of limiting the recovery, and it is considered that the ground of demurrer in this particular should not be sustained. It is sufficiently apparent that it is pleaded as a partial defense, without so stating in terms. Demurrer to the tenth division of the answer is sustained. Heretofore, as the answer shows, the defendant moved in this court to set aside the summons and complaint, upon the ground that service upon the treasurer in this state was not a service upon the defendant, hut, upon a full presentation of the facts to the court, it was held that such service was made upon the treasurer while he was in the state of New York upon the business of the defendant, and that such service did give the court jurisdiction. It is not understood how that issue can he tried first by motion, and, after determination thereof, again upon an issue raised concerning the same facts by answer.

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

THOMAS, District Judge.

The plaintiff demurs to the tenth division of the answer, which is to the effect that service in this district on the treasurer of the defendant, a corporation resident in the state of New Jersey, did not give this court jurisdiction of the corporation; and also to the eleventh division of the answer, which is to the effect that an act relating to libels (Laws N. J. 1898, c. 204) had not been complied with by the plaintiff, in that he had not previous to the commencement of the action requested the retraction of the libelous charge. The failure to make such request by the terms of the statute precludes recovery beyond actual damages proved and specially alleged, unless the plaintiff prove malice in fact. The defendant has pleaded the statute as a separate and further defense, and in mitigation of any damages to which the defendant would otherwise be entitled. The defendant might properly plead the statute in mitigation of damages, and the statement that it has also pleaded it in defense may be unnecessary and perhaps improper, if the word “defense” be used in its technical sense. But in any'case the statute can only he used for the purposes of limiting the recovery, and it is considered that the ground of demurrer in this particular should not be sustained. It is sufficiently apparent that it is pleaded as a partial defense, without so stating in terms. Demurrer to the tenth division of the answer is sustained. Heretofore, as the answer shows, the defendant moved in this court to set aside the summons and complaint, upon the ground that service upon the treasurer in this state was not a service upon the defendant, hut, upon a full presentation of the facts to the court, it was held that such service was made upon the treasurer while he was in the state of New York upon the business of the defendant, and that such service did give the court jurisdiction. It is not understood how that issue can he tried first by motion, and, after determination thereof, again upon an issue raised concerning the same facts by answer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 F. 368, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foye-v-guardian-printing-publishing-co-circtedny-1901.