TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Keller v. Loyless

Keller v. Loyless, 205 F. 510 (2d Cir. 1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 12, 1913
Docket
No. 220
Citations
205 F. 510123 C.C.A. 5781913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1476
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
1. Libel and Slander (§ 6*) — Words Libelous Per Se. A publication criticising a prior publication by plaintiff in a trade journal, and charging plaintiff with being a tradueer of the bottling trade traveling man, and desiring to eliminate him from the trade, but charging plaintiff with no offense, act of immorality, etc., was not libelous per se. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 3-16; Dec. Dig. § 6.*] 2. Libel and Slander (§ 89*) — Words Not Libelous Per Se — Special Damages. Where an alleged publication was not libelous per se, a complaint failing to specifically charge that plaintiff suffered special damage was insufficient, and properly dismissed. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 213, 214; Dec. Dig. § 89.*]
Summary
' In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Action by William B. Keller against Donald A. Loyless for publishing an alleged libelous article of and concerning plaintiff. The article was published on April 5, 1908, in a trade journal known as the “Southern Carbonator and Bottler/’ and was as follows: “¡Selling Goods to Bottlers. “In its March issue, the National Bottlers’ Gazette of New York perpetrated a characteristic editorial ghost dance under the above heading, running amuck with its crazy snickersnee whetted keen for the poor traveling man. “In this remarkable aberration, the bellicose crank, who slings muck for ink in his self-appointed and highly imaginary job of running the business of every manufacturer, supply dealer, bottler and bottling trade journal In the United Stales of America, cooiy eliminates the knight of the grip from the equation of selling in the commercial carbonating world, reducing tho business to that of a mere mail order house. He gives the faithful, order-getting road man his walking papers, with a sneer at his efficiency and with a slander on his morals and maimers, declaring: “ ‘The old timers who held back their orders for the coming of some glib salesman — who got him and himself, too, stone blind drunk and had “such fun” together — are fast passing away. A new era has set in. A bottler can’t be “half seas” over and do business intelligently.’ “Ye gods! Listen to that! It was not enough to kick the drummer downstairs, but he is branded as a drunkard and roysterer, employing bibulous conviviality as an art to land orders, a good deal as the confidence man works his oily wiles. “The New York traducer of the bottling trade traveling man will probably be prompt with his little apology in his April issue, but Ms animus is plain enough, and the fraternity has seen him in Ms true light. ’ “Of course, slander aside, there is but one side to the question in so far as it involves advertising and traveling salesmen. The two are co-operative in every sense. Both are good and both are necessary.” "Acute Botts.” “From Texas ‘Grandoldtaxes.’ one of the best known traveling representatives in the line, writes that ‘the editor of the National Bottlers’ Gazette must be suffering from a ease of acute botts. Don’t think his advertising scheme will work, and he will find the number of traveling men increasing year by year just the same as in the past.’ ” The court dismissed the complaint on demurrer, and plaintiff brings error.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

PER CURIAM.

[1, 2] As the articles complained of are not libelous per se, and as a demand to recover special damages for defamatory words not libelous per se is not sufficiently set forth, the complaint was properly dismissed. Judge Mayer’s opinion fully covers the subject.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1943: 11957: 119432026peak 1943 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Berg v. Printers' Ink Pub. Co.54 F. Supp. 795 (S.D.N.Y. 1943)
  2. Dorney v. Dairymen's League Cooperative Ass'n149 F. Supp. 615 (D.N.J. 1957)

Most recent

  1. Dorney v. Dairymen's League Cooperative Ass'n149 F. Supp. 615 (D.N.J. 1957)
  2. Berg v. Printers' Ink Pub. Co.54 F. Supp. 795 (S.D.N.Y. 1943)

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