Rahauser v. Barth
3 Watts 28
Opinion
Though it is by no means clear that the amendment would have made the words actionable, without an averment that the plaintiff had in fact preached the funeral sermon alluded to; yet it was demandable of right, and ought to have been allowed. Slanderous words- must be set out in the language in which they were spoken ; and the leave required went no further than to enable the defendant to comply with the rule by doing so. No change in substance was proposed; and it is not easy to imagine an objection.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rahauser v. Barth, 3 Watts 28 (Pa. 1834).
3 Watts 28 (Rahauser v. Barth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
First National Bank v. Jermyn
63 Pa. D. & C. 569 (Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, 1948)
Wilcinska v. Jastremska
12 Pa. D. & C. 718 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1929)
Kiss v. Nimet
6 Pa. D. & C. 543 (Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, 1924)
Romano v. DeVito
78 N.E. 105 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Bower v. Deideker
38 Iowa 418 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1874)
Bogart v. M'Donald
2 Johns. Cas. 219 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)