The opinion
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING
Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN delivered the opinion of the court:
In their petition for rehearing, plaintiffs have raised several questions, only one of which we believe requires consideration; namely, that a recent decision (Halpern v. News-Sun Broadcasting Co. (1977), 53 Ill. App. 3d 644 , 368 N.E.2d 1062 ), which appeared in the advance sheets subsequent to the filing of our opinion, is contrary to our holding that a libel per quod cause of action was not stated because special damages were not alleged with particularity.
In Halpern, the order dismissing the complaint stated that it “fails to state a cause of action in that it fails to allege actual malice or special damage.” We note, however, that the issue on appeal was whether a libel per se had been alleged, and the court, in reversing, found that the complaint sufficiently alleged libel per se and, thus, that plaintiff “was not required to allege special damages.” Then, the court stated:
“Even if we are wrong in our conclusion that there is no requirement that the corporate plaintiff in the instant circumstances allege special damages, we do not believe that the complaint herein can be properly dismissed for failure to include such allegations. We note that in part the corporation has pled that it has lost income and continues to lose income as a result of patients leaving the home and other patients removing their applications. We believe that this constitutes a proper allegation of special damages. Cf., Windsor Lake, Inc. v. WROK (1968), 94 Ill. App. 2d 403 , 236 N.E.2d 913 .” 53 Ill. App. 3d 644, 653 , 368 N.E.2d 1062, 1069 .
Halpern does not alter our opinion that the complaint in the instant case alleges only general damages. First, because the quoted statement above is merely dictum, the court having found that an action libelous per se had been stated and therefore that special damages need not be alleged. Second, although the specific allegations of the complaint as to damages are not set forth in Halpern, it appears that they may properly have alleged special damages. This is indicated from the fact that, in Windsor Lake, the supporting case cited in the above quote from Halpern, special damages were alleged. Third, because allegations of damages similar to those in the instant case were found to allege only general damages in Grabavoy v. Wilson (1967), 87 Ill. App. 2d 193, 196 , 230 N.E.2d 581, 583 ; Whitby v. Associates Discount Corp. (1965), 59 Ill. App. 2d 337 , 207 N.E.2d 482 ; The von Solbrig Memorial Hospital v. Licata (1973), 15 Ill. App. 3d 1025 , 305 N.E.2d 252 ; and Hambrie v. Field Enterprises, Inc. (1964), 46 Ill. App. 2d 355 , 196 N.E.2d 489 .
In view of the foregoing, we adhere to the findings of our opinion and, accordingly, the petition for rehearing is denied.
Petition for rehearing denied.
LORENZ and WILSON, JJ., concur.