"A mere insinuation is as actionable as a positive assertion, if the meaning is plain, and it has been held repeatedly that the putting of the words in the form of a question will in no wise reduce the liability of the defendant."
How later courts described this case
- "A mere insinuation is as actionable as a positive assertion, if the meaning is plain, and it has been held repeatedly that the putting of the words in the form of a question will in no wise reduce the liability of the defendant."
- setting forth the three classes that constitute slander per se
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Matthias, J.,
dissenting. In my opinion the amended petition is vulnerable to demurrer upon the ground that separate causes of action against several defendants are improperly joined.
Slander cannot be jointly committed by two or more persons; but there is a joint liability when slanderous words are uttered by one pursuant to a conspiracy to injure or defame another by slander.
In the pleading before us, however, there is no al
*86
legation of a conspiracy formed by the defendants to injure or defame the plaintiff by the utterance of slanderous statements regarding Mm, as appeared in the case of
Green
v.
Davies,
182 N. Y., 499 , 75 N. E., 536 , much relied upon to support plaintiff’s claim. The very basis of the decision in that case was that the several slanders were uttered in pursuance of a common agreement between the defendants that they should be uttered.. In this case the allegations are only of a conspiracy to secure control of the business of the corporation of which plaintiff was president, and there are no averments of any agreement or understanding among the defendants that either should indulge in slanderous statements or use any improper or unlawful means to accomplish a purpose which in and of itself was not unlawful.
Zimmerman, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.