Gross Coal Co. v. Rose

105 N.W. 225, 126 Wis. 24, 1905 Wisc. LEXIS 219
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 24, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 105 N.W. 225 (Gross Coal Co. v. Rose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gross Coal Co. v. Rose, 105 N.W. 225, 126 Wis. 24, 1905 Wisc. LEXIS 219 (Wis. 1905).

Opinion

"Winsnow, J.

A corporation may sue for a slander or libel upon it in the way of its business or trade. Newell, Libel & S. (2d ed.) 360. There can be no doubt that the published letter which forms the basis of the second cause of action was-libelous per se under the circumstances set forth in the complaint. It charged, in substance, that at a time when there-was a coal famine and people were suffering for fuel, the plaintiff, though engaged in the business of selling coal, not only charged extortionate prices for its coal, but actually re[27]*27fused to sell coal, even at those prices, to people suffering from sickness. Such a charg’e is libelous, because imputing mean and abhorrent conduct to the plaintiff in the management of its business, and thus tending necessarily to injure it in such business. Newell, Libel & S. (2d ed.) 43, § 1; Id. 74, § 14; Brown v. Vannaman, 85 Wis. 451, 55 N. W. 183.

It is claimed, however, that, while the words may be libelous when written and published, the same words do not constitute slander per se when spoken, and that there is no sufficient allegation of special damage — hence that the first cause-of action is subject to demurrer. This contention, also, must fail. Words spoken of a person in direct reference to his business or trade, which charge him with incapacity, fraud, trickery, dishonorable and mean conduct in the transaction of his business, thereby necessarily tending to injure him in such business, are actionable without proof of special damage. Newell, Libel & S. (2d ed.) 168, §§ 1, 2; 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.) 942. There seems to be no need of further discussion of the subject.

By the Gourt. — Order affirmed.

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

Related

Seitz v. Rheem Manufacturing Co.
544 F. Supp. 2d 901 (D. Arizona, 2008)
Proto v. Bridgeport Herald Corporation
72 A.2d 820 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1950)
Gershon & Green v. Mendel
141 S.E. 328 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Interstate Optical Co. v. Illinois State Society of Optometrists
244 Ill. App. 158 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1927)
Shubert v. Variety, Inc.
128 Misc. 428 (New York Supreme Court, 1926)
Ridgeway State Bank v. Bird
202 N.W. 170 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1925)
Security Benefit Ass'n v. Daily News Pub. Co.
299 F. 445 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)
Finnish Temperance Society Sovittaja v. Finnish Socialistic Publishing Co.
130 N.E. 845 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Coal Land Development Co. v. Chidester
103 S.E. 923 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1920)
Leech v. Farmers Tobacco Warehouse Co.
188 S.W. 886 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1916)
Axton Fisher Tobacco Co. v. Evening Post Co.
183 S.W. 269 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1916)
Puget Sound Nav. Co. v. Carter
233 F. 832 (W.D. Washington, 1916)
Willfred Coal Co. v. Sapp
193 Ill. App. 400 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1915)
Beek v. Nelson
147 N.W. 668 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
Fehlhaber v. McFadden
146 N.W. 484 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1914)
Marino v. Di Marco
41 App. D.C. 76 (D.C. Circuit, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 N.W. 225, 126 Wis. 24, 1905 Wisc. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gross-coal-co-v-rose-wis-1905.