TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hazell v. Shelby

SAMUEL HAZELL, in error v. CHARLES A. SHELBY, in error

Hazell v. Shelby, 11 Ill. 9 (1849)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1849
Judges
Treat
Citations
11 Ill. 9
Headnotes
Error to Massac. That part of the third section of the sixty-sixth chapter of the Revised Statutes, which provides that "every action upon the case for words, shall be commenced within one year next after the words spoken, and not after, "is not broad enough to include actions for libel, - but is confined exclusively to actions for verbal slander. - It is a familiar principle, that a stMuto of limitations shall not be applied to cases not clear.ly within its provisions.
Summary
This was an action for libel by I-Iazell against Shelby. Shelby pleaded the statute of limitations, that he was not guilty, within one year of the time of the commencement of the suit. To which plea there was general demurrer, and joinder. The demurrer was overruled at May term, 1849. Oase was heard before Denning, Judge. The defendant in the Circuit Court sued out this writ of error. The error assigned, was the sustaining of the demurrer to the plea.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Treat

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion by TREAT, C. J.: This was an action for libel. The defendant pleaded that the cause of action did not accrue within one year before the commencement of the suit. The Court overruled a demurrer to the plea, and judgment was entered for the defendant.

If the plea can be sustained, it must be on the ground that the cause of action is embraced by the 3d section of the 66th chapter of the Revised Statutes, which provides that “ every action upon the case for words shall be commenced within one year next after the words spoken, and not after.” This section is not broad enough to include actions for libel, but is confined exclusively to actions for verbal slander. It is strictly applicable in its terms to the latter class of actions, and cannot be extended by construction to other actions, although the same reasons may exist for limiting them. It is a familiar principle that a statute of limitations shall not be applied to cases not clearly within its provisions.

A British statute limited the bringing of actions for words spoken to two years, and it was held by the courts not to extend to libels. Angelí on Limitations, 325.

Cases within the reason, but not within the words of the statute, are not barred, but may be considered as omitted cases, which the legislature did not deem proper to limit. See Bedell vs. Janney, 4 Gilman, 193 , and authorities there cited. The Circuit Court erred in overruling the demurrer to the plea. Whether the action for written slander is barred in five years, under the first section of the chapter before referred to, or whether it is a casus omissus, arc questions which need not now be decided.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, with costs, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed,.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1866–1867: 11868–1869: 11886–1887: 11894–1895: 11912–1913: 118662026peak 1866 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Baker v. Kelley11 Minn. 480 (1866)
  2. Hibernian Banking Ass'n v. Commercial National Bank41 N.E. 919 (Ill. 1895)
  3. Sherman House Hotel Co. v. Butler Street Foundry & Iron Co.168 Ill. App. 549 (1912)
  4. Blackburn University v. Weer21 Ill. App. 29 (1886)
  5. Cook v. Kendall13 Minn. 324 (1868)

Most recent

  1. Sherman House Hotel Co. v. Butler Street Foundry & Iron Co.168 Ill. App. 549 (1912)
  2. Hibernian Banking Ass'n v. Commercial National Bank41 N.E. 919 (Ill. 1895)
  3. Blackburn University v. Weer21 Ill. App. 29 (1886)
  4. Cook v. Kendall13 Minn. 324 (1868)
  5. Baker v. Kelley11 Minn. 480 (1866)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list