Salomon v. Armour & Co.

S.D. New York

Salomon v. Armour & Co.

123 F. 342, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4903

DecidedMay 8, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 123 F. 342 (Salomon v. Armour & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Salomon v. Armour & Co., 123 F. 342, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4903 (S.D.N.Y. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PLATT, District Judge.

It is not an ordinary harmless thing to publish of a merchant that he neglects and refuses to pay his debts when due. If one does such a thing maliciously, and with intent to injure the person spoken or written about, he ought to make full compensation, unless he can justify his action by proving the truth of the statement.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that the publication was false. There was no “admitted indebtedness.” The plaintiffs say that they tendered all that they owed. The question of privilege cannot- arise on the facts set forth in the complaint.

So far as now appears, the publication rather smacks of an attempt on the part of the defendant to apply the terrors of the blacklist as a punishment for the temerity of the plaintiffs in having presumed to differ from the defendant on a fact or on a point of bookkeeping. A number of interesting questions loom up above the horizon which ought to be submitted to a jury.

Let the demurrer be overruled.

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

PLATT, District Judge.

It is not an ordinary harmless thing to publish of a merchant that he neglects and refuses to pay his debts when due. If one does such a thing maliciously, and with intent to injure the person spoken or written about, he ought to make full compensation, unless he can justify his action by proving the truth of the statement.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that the publication was false. There was no “admitted indebtedness.” The plaintiffs say that they tendered all that they owed. The question of privilege cannot- arise on the facts set forth in the complaint.

So far as now appears, the publication rather smacks of an attempt on the part of the defendant to apply the terrors of the blacklist as a punishment for the temerity of the plaintiffs in having presumed to differ from the defendant on a fact or on a point of bookkeeping. A number of interesting questions loom up above the horizon which ought to be submitted to a jury.

Let the demurrer be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. 342, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salomon-v-armour-co-nysd-1903.