Hyperlawhypertext legal database Jacobs v. Water Overflow Preventive Co. 79 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 637

← Cases

Jacobs v. Water Overflow Preventive Co.

79 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 637 Court N.Y. Gen. Term English

Contents

Majority

p. 637
Maurice Jacobs, Respondent, v. Water Overflow Preventive Company, Appellant.

Headnote

Order reversed and motion granted in accordance with directions in opinion, with ten dollars costs and disbursements of appeal, and ten dollars costs of motion.—
Appeal by the defendant, the Water Overflow Preventive Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term, and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on June 30, 1893, denying defendant’s motion for a hill or particulars of the plaintiff’s claim.

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. 492 ; Kraft v. Dingee, 38 Hun, 345 ; Childs v. Tuttle, 48 id. 228; Peabody v. Cortado, 18 N. Y. Supp. 622 .) 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.