Hardboard MacHinery Co., Inc. v. Coastal Products Corporation

Fifth Circuit

Hardboard MacHinery Co., Inc. v. Coastal Products Corporation

398 F.2d 833, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5942

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 29, 1968

Docket25274_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 398 F.2d 833 (Hardboard MacHinery Co., Inc. v. Coastal Products Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hardboard MacHinery Co., Inc. v. Coastal Products Corporation, 398 F.2d 833, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5942 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This consolidated appeal is from the granting of motions to dismiss four libel suits against the corporate appellee, and Robert D. Conner, its secretary-treasurer. The causes of action were substantially the same except that different plaintiffs (appellants here) were involved. It was claimed that Coastal and Conner had libeled the plaintiffs by the writing and publication of certain letters directed to suppliers of plaintiffs concerning financial matters between the parties, which publications caused the plaintiffs to be unjustly damaged in the business community. No special damage was asserted. The district court finding that the words used were “incapable of the meaning ascribed to them by the innuendo”, and that there was no issue for the jury, dismissed the complaints. We agree that this was a proper disposition and affirm.

Appellants further urge that the words used were libelous in themselves without any innuendo. We find this contention without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This consolidated appeal is from the granting of motions to dismiss four libel suits against the corporate appellee, and Robert D. Conner, its secretary-treasurer. The causes of action were substantially the same except that different plaintiffs (appellants here) were involved. It was claimed that Coastal and Conner had libeled the plaintiffs by the writing and publication of certain letters directed to suppliers of plaintiffs concerning financial matters between the parties, which publications caused the plaintiffs to be unjustly damaged in the business community. No special damage was asserted. The district court finding that the words used were “incapable of the meaning ascribed to them by the innuendo”, and that there was no issue for the jury, dismissed the complaints. We agree that this was a proper disposition and affirm.

Appellants further urge that the words used were libelous in themselves without any innuendo. We find this contention without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 F.2d 833, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardboard-machinery-co-inc-v-coastal-products-corporation-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack