Hussey v. New York Recorder Co.

New York Supreme Court

Hussey v. New York Recorder Co.

35 N.Y.S. 49, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 609, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 441, 89 Hun 609

New York Supreme Court·Decided July 26, 1895·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PRATT, J.

I entertain no doubt of the propriety of the action of the learned trial judge in overruling this demurrer. The case of Moore v. Francis, 121 N. Y. 199, 23 N. E. 1127, so much relied on by appellant, is an authority against it. We think the complaint states a plain cause of action for libel. We fail to find in the opinion in that case the words apparently quoted in defendant’s points. Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to answer within 20 days, on payment of costs. All concur.

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

PRATT, J.

I entertain no doubt of the propriety of the action of the learned trial judge in overruling this demurrer. The case of Moore v. Francis, 121 N. Y. 199, 23 N. E. 1127, so much relied on by appellant, is an authority against it. We think the complaint states a plain cause of action for libel. We fail to find in the opinion in that case the words apparently quoted in defendant’s points. Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to answer within 20 days, on payment of costs. All concur.

Hussey v. New York Recorder Co., 35 N.Y.S. 49, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 609, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 441, 89 Hun 609 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

35 N.Y.S. 49 (Hussey v. New York Recorder Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related