New York & Westchester Water Co. v. Morning Journal Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York & Westchester Water Co. v. Morning Journal Ass'n

40 N.Y.S. 272

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

DecidedJune 29, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 40 N.Y.S. 272 (New York & Westchester Water Co. v. Morning Journal Ass'n) 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

New York & Westchester Water Co. v. Morning Journal Ass'n, 40 N.Y.S. 272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The words claimed to be libelous are not in terms alleged to be spoken of and concerning the plaintiff. The learned judge below held that equivalent words are‘alleged. This, however, does not seem to be borne out by what was actually alleged. The allegation was that the words were published with the malicious intent and purpose to injure the business of the plaintiff. This is not an averment that the words were spoken of and concerning the plaintiff, nor is it equivalent thereto. The same observations apply to the other statements referred to by the learned judge. It is quite clear, at all events, that whether the words stated were equivalent to the necessary words was not so evident as to justify the treatment of the demurrer as frivolous. The parties should at least have been permitted to argue the demurrer in the ordinary course at special term.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The words claimed to be libelous are not in terms alleged to be spoken of and concerning the plaintiff. The learned judge below held that equivalent words are‘alleged. This, however, does not seem to be borne out by what was actually alleged. The allegation was that the words were published with the malicious intent and purpose to injure the business of the plaintiff. This is not an averment that the words were spoken of and concerning the plaintiff, nor is it equivalent thereto. The same observations apply to the other statements referred to by the learned judge. It is quite clear, at all events, that whether the words stated were equivalent to the necessary words was not so evident as to justify the treatment of the demurrer as frivolous. The parties should at least have been permitted to argue the demurrer in the ordinary course at special term.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 N.Y.S. 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-westchester-water-co-v-morning-journal-assn-nyappdiv-1896.