Jacobs v. Water Overflow Preventive Co. — 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 435

Majority

p. 435

Maurice Jacobs, Resp’t, v. The Water Overflow Preventive Co., App’lt.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,

Filed October 13, 1893.)

Headnote

Libel—Bill of particulars.

In an action for libel, where special damages are claimed on the ground that many persons, firms and corporations were intimidated by reason of the libelous publication and canceled contracts made with plaintiff, the defendant is entitled to a hill of particulars stating the names and addresses of such persons, firms and corporations.

Appeal from order denying motion to compel plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars.

Lehmaier & Williams (James S. Lehmaier, of counsel), for app’lt; Lucius McAdam, for resp’t.

This is an action for the recovery of damages for the publication of matter alleged to be defamatory. It is alleged in the complaint that by reason of the publication the plaintiff has been greatly injured in his reputation and business. The following is the allegation of special damages sought to be recovered:

“ That by reason of the sending of said circulars many persons, firms and corporations were intimidated, and canceled contracts already made with him, said plaintiff, and declined and refused to enter into contracts with him for the lease or sale to them of said patent or invention, whereby this plaintiff was put to serious pecuniary loss and injury, to his damage ten thousand dollars.”

It has been several times held that when special damages are sought to be recovered the particulars relating to those damages must be given. N. Y. Infant Asylum v. Roosevelt, 35 Hun, 501 ; Dwight v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 84 N. Y., 493 ; Kraft v. Dingee, 38 Hun, 345 ; Childs v. Tuttle, 48 id., 228; 17 St. Rep., 943 ; Peabody v. Cortada, 45 id., 834. The plaintiff should state the names and addresses of the persons, firms and corporations who were intimidated and canceled contracts entered into with him, and who refused to contract with him, by reason of the publication set out in the complaint. The order should be reversed, and the motion granted in accordance with this opinion, with ten dollars costs and disbursements of appeal, and ten dollars costs of motion.

Van Brunt, P. J., Follett and Parker, JJ., concur.