Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf Pub. Co.

D. Massachusetts

Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf Pub. Co.

112 F. Supp. 228, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2748

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedMay 7, 1953

DocketCiv. A. 52-979

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 112 F. Supp. 228 (Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf Pub. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gilbert Shoe Co. v. Rumpf Pub. Co., 112 F. Supp. 228, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2748 (D. Mass. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

*229 FORD, District Judge.

There are two plaintiffs in this libel action, a corporation and an individual alleged to be president, treasurer, and general manager of the corporation. The action is based on the alleged publication by defendant in its trade magazine of the statement that: “Gilbert Shoe Co., Inc., Haverhill shoe manufacturer, has filed petition for receivership, it is reported.” Defendant moves that the action of the individual plaintiff be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The allegedly libelous statement involved here refers solely to the plaintiff corporation and not to the individual plaintiff. It is essential in an action for libel that the publication of the libel should be of or concerning the plaintiff. Hanson v. Globe Newspaper Co., 159 Mass. 293, 294, 34 N.E. 462, 20 L.R.A. 856. One who is not himself libeled cannot recover even though he has been injured by the libel published concerning another. Security Sales Agency v. A. S. Abell Co., D.C., 205 F. 941. In particular, an officer or stockholder of a corporation who is not personally libeled has no right to recover for a libel published of the corporation. McBride v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 5 Cir., 196 F.2d 187, 189; Finnish Temperance Society Sovittaja v. Finnish Socialistic Pub. Co., 238 Mass. 345, 354, 130 N.E. 845.

Motion to dismiss is allowed.

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

*229 FORD, District Judge.

There are two plaintiffs in this libel action, a corporation and an individual alleged to be president, treasurer, and general manager of the corporation. The action is based on the alleged publication by defendant in its trade magazine of the statement that: “Gilbert Shoe Co., Inc., Haverhill shoe manufacturer, has filed petition for receivership, it is reported.” Defendant moves that the action of the individual plaintiff be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The allegedly libelous statement involved here refers solely to the plaintiff corporation and not to the individual plaintiff. It is essential in an action for libel that the publication of the libel should be of or concerning the plaintiff. Hanson v. Globe Newspaper Co., 159 Mass. 293, 294, 34 N.E. 462, 20 L.R.A. 856. One who is not himself libeled cannot recover even though he has been injured by the libel published concerning another. Security Sales Agency v. A. S. Abell Co., D.C., 205 F. 941. In particular, an officer or stockholder of a corporation who is not personally libeled has no right to recover for a libel published of the corporation. McBride v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 5 Cir., 196 F.2d 187, 189; Finnish Temperance Society Sovittaja v. Finnish Socialistic Pub. Co., 238 Mass. 345, 354, 130 N.E. 845.

Motion to dismiss is allowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 F. Supp. 228, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-shoe-co-v-rumpf-pub-co-mad-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack