Keating v. Conviser

Headnote

Libel — letter sent by de,, endant, a creditor of plaintiff, to her employer.

Keating v. Conviser, 219 App. Div. 836 , affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment entered March 23, 1927, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, which reversed an order of the court at a Trial Term setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and reinstated said verdict. The action was for libel, the complaint alleging that defendant sent the following letter to her employer:

“ Conviser’s “Uneeda

“ 1061 Broadway, Brooklyn, N. Y.

“ Telephone Jefferson 6200

“March 26, 1924.

“ No. 28817

“ U. S. Lines,

“ 45 Broadway,

“ N. Y. C.:

“ Gentlemen.— Permit us to direct your attention to a matter of importance.

“ Miss Alice Keating of your employ purchased from us some time ago, clothing amounting to $79.50. Although agreeing to pay us $2.50 per week, to date we have received no payment on the balance of $10.00 since August 11, 1923.

“ Frankly spealdng, the only basis upon which we extended credit to her was the fact that she was a person in your employ, from each of whom you require a certain standard of honesty.

“ Now there are two ways open to us to enforce collection. One way is to take the debtor to Court; this involves a loss of time and additional court costs to which

naturally we do not like to resort unless absolutely compelled.

“ The other method which we prefer is to appeal to a man in authority like yourself. We honestly believe that a word from you will make her realize the unfairness of withholding payment on a just obligation.

“ Thanking you in advance for any assistance you may give us on this matter, we are

“ Very truly yours,

“ P. PERLIN,

“ Uneeda Credit Clothing Co.”

The Appellate Division held that the communication was libelous per se, in view of a prior communication from defendants to plaintiff threatening to make trouble for her in the event she did not pay their bill.