Eisenberg v. Reasenberg — 252 N.Y. 490

Majority

p. 490

George Eisenberg, Respondent, v. Afner Reasenberg, Appellant.

(Argued December 5, 1929;

decided January 7, 1930.)

p. 491

Samuel Sumner Goldberg and Hyman Podell for appellant.

The letter which the defendant wrote to the Collector of Customs was absolutely privileged and not the subject of an affirmative cause of action in favor of the plaintiff, and the complaint should have been dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case. (18 Hals-bury’s Laws of England, 677; Odgers on Libel & Slander [5th ed.], 227; Hyman v. Press Publishing Co., 199 App. Div. 609 ; Gibbon v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 ; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 ; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275 ; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465 ; Nutt v. Knutt, 200 U. S. 12 ; Knickerbocker v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149 ; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135 ; Union Pacific v. Burke, 255 U. S. 317 ; American Ry. Exp. v. Lindenberg, 260 U. S. 584 ; Matter of Quarles v. Butler, 158 U. S. 532 .)

B. M. S. Putnam and Joseph Nemerov for respondent.

The letter had no absolute privilege under the law. (Pecue v. West, 233 N. Y. 316 ; Matter of Quarles v. Butler, 158 U. S. 532 ; Vogel v. Grauz, 110 U. S. 311 ; Worthington v. Scribner, 109 Mass. 487 ; White v. Nicholls, 11 U. S. 266 .)

Upon this record the jury could properly find that the defendant had no information and no belief that the plaintiff had been guilty of any wrong. The privilege of transmitting information of an alleged crime to the appropriate public officers cannot apply to a communication sent under such circumstances.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases cited

Gibbons v. Ogden 9 Wheat. 1 SCOTUS 1824-03-02 p. 491
Brown v. Maryland 12 Wheat. 419 SCOTUS 1827-03-12 p. 491
Welton v. Missouri 91 U. S. 275 SCOTUS p. 491
Smith v. Alabama 124 U. S. 465 SCOTUS 1888-01-30 p. 491
Nutt v. Knut 200 U. S. 12 SCOTUS 1906-01-02 p. 491
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart 253 U. S. 149 SCOTUS 1920-05-17 p. 491
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota ex rel. Langer 250 U. S. 135 SCOTUS 1919-06-02 p. 491
Union Pacific Railroad v. Burke 255 U. S. 317 SCOTUS 1921-02-28 p. 491
American Railway Express Co. v. Lindenburg 260 U. S. 584 SCOTUS 1923-01-08 p. 491
In re Quarles 158 U. S. 532 SCOTUS 1895-05-20 p. 491
Pecue v. West 233 N. Y. 316 N.Y. 1922-04-25 p. 491
Vogel v. Gruaz 110 U. S. 311 SCOTUS 1884-02-04 p. 491