Taylor v. Wallace

Decided May 15, 1900

New York Supreme Court · decided 1900-05-15

<p>Slander — Pleading — Words not necessarily imputing unchastity.</p> <p>A complaint in slander alleging that the defendant said of the plaintiff, a woman, that she had “ coaxed his bartender to stay with her all night ” is not, without an allegation showing that the meaning was to attribute unchastity to the plaintiff, sufficient, as the words in. question do not necessarily impute unchastity.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1967

2 state decisions

Relies on Hemmens v. . Nelson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gaynob, J.:

¶1It was claimed at the trial that the words imputeuncliastity to the plaintiff. They do not necessarily do so. A woman may ask a man to stay at her house over night for more reasons than one. It is a familiar rule of pleading in actions for damages for libel or slander that where the words are not necessarily slanderous, i. e. are capable of a meaning not slanderous, the slanderous meaning which is claimed must be alleged in the complaint in order to state a cause of action. Otherwise the defendant is not put on his defense as to such meaning, and enabled to plead facts in justification or mitigation. It is not for him to attribute a slanderous meaning to his words in order to plead thereto (Hemmens v. Nelson, 138 N. Y. 517; Smid v. Bernard, 31 Misc. Rep. 35).

¶2Motion for a new trial denied.