Garven v. Finch

116 A. 771, 97 N.J.L. 329, 12 Gummere 329, 1922 N.J. LEXIS 199
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 6, 1922·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curtam.

The judgment under review herein should he affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court. In addition to the Supreme Court’s citation of 25 Cyc. 250, 253, as authority that a crime need not be charged to make an action libelous, per se, we call attention to the case of Shaw v. Bender, 90 N. J. L. 147, wherein this court held that wherever words clearly sound to the disreputation of the plaintiff there is no need of further proof, as they are defamatory on their face and actionable per se.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Tren chard, Bergen, Mint urn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, White, Hbppbniieimeh, Williams, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Buskjrk:, JJ. 14.

For re renal — None.

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

Garven v. Finch, 116 A. 771, 97 N.J.L. 329, 12 Gummere 329, 1922 N.J. LEXIS 199 (N.J. 1922).

116 A. 771 (Garven v. Finch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lawrence v. Bauer Publishing & Printing Ltd.
446 A.2d 469 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1982)
Lawrence v. Bauer Publishing & Printing Ltd.
423 A.2d 655 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1980)
Fenning v. SG Holding Corp.
135 A.2d 346 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
Bock v. Plainfield Courier-News
132 A.2d 523 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
Leers v. Green
131 A.2d 781 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1957)