MacCromac v. Tobey

109 A.D. 581, 96 N.Y.S. 302
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 15, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 109 A.D. 581 (MacCromac v. Tobey) 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
MacCromac v. Tobey, 109 A.D. 581, 96 N.Y.S. 302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Opinion

Ingraham, J.:

i

This action was brought against the defendant as owner and publisher of a newspaper called the Sunday Courier, published in Poughkeepsie, Dutchess county, N. Y., to recover damages for a libel. The complaint alleges that the newspaper was published in Poughkeepsie and that the said paper is of general circulation in that city and the vicinity. There is no allegation that there was a publication of the libel outside of the county of Dutchess.

W e held in Rogers v. Butler (11 App. Div. 613) and in Woolworth v. Kloclñ (92 id. 142) that an action for libel should be tried, in the county in which the newspaper is published and circulated. Whatever damages the plaintiff sustained in consequence of such publication arose from the publication in the county in which ‘the newspaper was circulated. There is no justification alleged, and the only questions to be determined are whether or. not the article published is a libel and, if it is, the amount of the plaintiff’s damage. The question as to whether the article published is .a libel is a question .of law, and the plaintiff’s damage, if any, can be more conveniently ascertained in Dutchess county, where the paper is circulated. •

The order appealed from should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.

O’Brien, P. concurred. J, McLaughlin, Lahghlin and Houghton, JJ.,

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

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

Related

Rae v. Advance Publications, Inc.
60 Misc. 2d 792 (New York Supreme Court, 1969)
Konigsberg v. Long Island Daily Press Publishing Co.
57 Misc. 2d 911 (New York Supreme Court, 1968)
Police Benevolent Ass'n v. Post-Standard Co.
20 A.D.2d 523 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Condon v. Schwenk
10 A.D.2d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 A.D. 581, 96 N.Y.S. 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maccromac-v-tobey-nyappdiv-1905.