Irving v. Irving

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Irving v. Irving

121 A.D. 258, 105 N.Y.S. 609, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1750

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 23, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 121 A.D. 258 (Irving v. Irving) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Irving v. Irving, 121 A.D. 258, 105 N.Y.S. 609, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

It is a familiar every day rule of pleading in actions for slander or" libel, that if the words complained of are equivocal, i. e., capable of an innocent meaning and a libelous meaning, the former has to be adopted by the court at the trial, and the case has to be dismissed ; unless the complaint has a special allegation that the libelous meaning was the one meant and conveyed by the defendant, in which case the question of the meaning is one of fact and not of law. Under such a special allegation the plaintiff may introduce any evidence to show that the defamatory sense was meant and understood. That is this case, for a defamatory meaning is alleged in the complaint. Except for that allegation, the word friend would have to be taken in its innocent sense. As it is, however, the plaintiff may prove, for instance, that the defendant had previously told Dr. Stubbert that the plaintiff had had a paramour friend, or had been addicted to such friends; and that would be evidence on which the jury could.find that the “ friend” mentioned, and put in suspicious quotation marks in liis letter, and made more suspicious by its society with the word “ fellow,” was meant for the same, or the same kind of a friend, and that that was the meaning conveyed. Words which could not bear a defamatory meaning to people generally, may bear such a meaning to one tutored in that use of them (Odgers, p. 113). ' All this scarcely calls for the citation of authority (Taylor v. Wallace, 31 Misc. Rep. 393).

It may not be amiss to note that as this is an action of libel the words may be actionable without' imputing nnchastity, as would have to be the sense of them to make them actionable if only spoken..

The judgment should be reversed.

Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward and Jenks, JJ., concurred.

Hooker, J.:

If the words had been, “ There is a fellow who used to be a paramour” or “a lover of the woman,” it would have been libelous; but an accepted-secondary meaning of “friend” is “lover of either sex,” and one province of quotation marks is to invite attention to other than the usual meaning of words. ■ It is for the jury to determine the sense in which "words have been used by the defendant, where they are capable of a construction which would [260]*260make them actionable. (Patch v. Tribune Association, 38 Hun, 368.) What the defendant meant by the use of the word “ friend ” in quotation marks is for the jury, and the demurrer should be overruled. '

Interlocutory judgment reversed,’with costs, and demurrer overruled, with costs, With leave to the defendant to plead over oh. payment.. ' .

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

Gaynor, J.:

It is a familiar every day rule of pleading in actions for slander or" libel, that if the words complained of are equivocal, i. e., capable of an innocent meaning and a libelous meaning, the former has to be adopted by the court at the trial, and the case has to be dismissed ; unless the complaint has a special allegation that the libelous meaning was the one meant and conveyed by the defendant, in which case the question of the meaning is one of fact and not of law. Under such a special allegation the plaintiff may introduce any evidence to show that the defamatory sense was meant and understood. That is this case, for a defamatory meaning is alleged in the complaint. Except for that allegation, the word friend would have to be taken in its innocent sense. As it is, however, the plaintiff may prove, for instance, that the defendant had previously told Dr. Stubbert that the plaintiff had had a paramour friend, or had been addicted to such friends; and that would be evidence on which the jury could.find that the “ friend” mentioned, and put in suspicious quotation marks in liis letter, and made more suspicious by its society with the word “ fellow,” was meant for the same, or the same kind of a friend, and that that was the meaning conveyed. Words which could not bear a defamatory meaning to people generally, may bear such a meaning to one tutored in that use of them (Odgers, p. 113). ' All this scarcely calls for the citation of authority (Taylor v. Wallace, 31 Misc. Rep. 393).

It may not be amiss to note that as this is an action of libel the words may be actionable without' imputing nnchastity, as would have to be the sense of them to make them actionable if only spoken..

The judgment should be reversed.

Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward and Jenks, JJ., concurred.

Hooker, J.:

If the words had been, “ There is a fellow who used to be a paramour” or “a lover of the woman,” it would have been libelous; but an accepted-secondary meaning of “friend” is “lover of either sex,” and one province of quotation marks is to invite attention to other than the usual meaning of words. ■ It is for the jury to determine the sense in which "words have been used by the defendant, where they are capable of a construction which would [260]*260make them actionable. (Patch v. Tribune Association, 38 Hun, 368.) What the defendant meant by the use of the word “ friend ” in quotation marks is for the jury, and the demurrer should be overruled. '

Interlocutory judgment reversed,’with costs, and demurrer overruled, with costs, With leave to the defendant to plead over oh. payment.. ' .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D. 258, 105 N.Y.S. 609, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irving-v-irving-nyappdiv-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack