Halliday v. Cienkowski

3 A.2d 372, 333 Pa. 123, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 695
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 6, 1938·No. Appeal, 244·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the refusal to take off a judgment of nonsuit in an action of trespass for slanderous words. To the opinion of the court below * may he added the following cases, representative of the supporting decisions in other jurisdictions: De Santo v. De Nicola, 99 Conn. 717, 122 A. 708, and Warren v. Ray, 155 Mich. 91, *124 118 N. W. 741, both holding that such words are not libelous per se in the absence of special circumstances showing that the words were not used in their ordinary-meaning; and Terwilliger v. Wands, 17 N. Y. 54, holding that mental distress and consequent physical illness do not constitute special damages recoverable where the words used are not actionable per se.

Judgment affirmed.

*

Halliday v. Cienkowslei, 32 D. & C. 410.

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

Halliday v. Cienkowski, 3 A.2d 372, 333 Pa. 123, 1939 Pa. LEXIS 695 (Pa. 1938).

3 A.2d 372 (Halliday v. Cienkowski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Culverhouse v. Cooke Center for Learning & Development, Inc.
177 Misc. 2d 365 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
Travers v. Shane
4 Mass. L. Rptr. 141 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 1995)
Walker v. Grand Central Sanitation, Inc.
634 A.2d 237 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1993)
Branda v. Sanford
637 P.2d 1223 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1981)
Humbertson v. Albright
40 Pa. D. & C. 456 (Fayette County Court, 1940)