¶1Mr. William E. Leahy, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Warren E. Ma-gee, of Washington, D. C., and Morris L. Ernst, of New York City, were on the brief, for appellants.
¶2Mr. Rudolph H. Yeátman, of 'Washington, D. C., for appellees.
¶3Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MIL-' LER, and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
¶5These are libel suits brought by Dorothy S. Thackrey, publisher of the New York Post, and her husband Theodore O. Thack-rey, its managing editor, against Eleanor Patterson, publisher of the Washington Times-Herald, and Austine Cassini, a Times-Herald writer. The complaints charge that the defendants published two newspaper articles which the complaints quote in full. The District Court ruled that the articles were not libelous per se and that the complaints made no sufficient allegations of special damage. The court therefore dismissed the complaints.
¶6 The first article says, in terms or in effect, that the plaintiff wife bought the plaintiff husband with money; that she finds him disappointing as an editor, and also inadequate as a husband; that in both these capacities her desire is for a different man, Charles B. McCabe, publisher of the Daily Mirror; and that she and McCabe “are the subject of conjectures.”1 The second article correctly describes, and so in effect repeats, the first as “linking Mrs. Thack-*615rey’s name romantically with that of Charles B. McCabe.” Obviously this romantic linking, and the first article as a whole, tend to hurt the standing of the plaintiff wife and also of the plaintiff husband “with a considerable and respectable class in the community.”2 It follows as a matter of law that the. articles are libelous. A mere assertion of marital discord is libelous, and these articles go far beyond that.3 Since their libelous meanings are obvious and do not depend upon extrinsic facts, it was unnecessary to plead extrinsic facts or an innuendo. It was also unnecessary to allege special damage. The court erred in dismissing the complaints.
¶7Reversed.