Herzog v. Kronman

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Herzog v. Kronman

2 D.C. 146

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided July 1, 1935·No. Law No. 84910·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

PROCTOR, J.

Plaintiff’s attorneys state that the suit is for slander of title. The, demurrer in effect admits there were certain false statements concerning the claim, but nothing stated has reference to the title of any property of the estate or of plaintiff. Nothing was stated which directly or by innuendo disparages title to such property. For these and other reasons appearing, the demurrer to the second amended declaration will be sustained.

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

MEMORANDUM

PROCTOR, J.

Plaintiff’s attorneys state that the suit is for slander of title. The, demurrer in effect admits there were certain false statements concerning the claim, but nothing stated has reference to the title of any property of the estate or of plaintiff. Nothing was stated which directly or by innuendo disparages title to such property. For these and other reasons appearing, the demurrer to the second amended declaration will be sustained.

Herzog v. Kronman, 2 D.C. 146 (D.C. 1935).

Pincite

2 D.C. 146 (Herzog v. Kronman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.