Hinkle v. Alexander
This text of 417 P.2d 586 (Hinkle v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
This was a libel action. A jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. The court allowed a motion for judgment n.o.v. Plaintiff appeals.
Defendant operated a restaurant, plus sleeping facilities, in Estacada which was primarily patronized by loggers working in the area. Frequently he would allow credit to his customers if the employer of the particular customer would agree to pay the bill. Plaintiff was a contract logger. One of plaintiff’s employees obtained credit from defendant and failed to pay. Plaintiff had not previously agreed to pay the bill of this employee. Defendant sought payment of plaintiff and plaintiff refused. Defendant then posted a notice in his place of business which contained the unpaid bill with the words “Wayne Hinkle owes this to us” written on the face of the bill. This is the claimed libel.
On this appeal plaintiff’s only argument is that the words were actionable per se. This case is, therefore, governed by Hudson v. Pioneer Service Co., 1959, 218 Or 561, 346 P2d 123, where it was held that publication of non-payment of a debt, except within circumstances not presented here, is not libelous per se.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
417 P.2d 586, 411 P.2d 829, 244 Or. 267, 1966 Ore. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinkle-v-alexander-or-1966.