4 Cal. App. 343
87 P 809
Decided October 16, 1906
California Court of Appeal · decided 1906-10-16
<p>Libel—Injury to Hotel Business—Sufficiency of Complaint.—A complaint alleging false publications by the defendants, by which parties named, who had read the published articles, were dissuaded from coming to plaintiff’s hotel, and did not come at all, and would have paid the plaintiff as proprietor of the hotel, as roomers, lodgers, boarders or transients, a large sum of money, from which they would have derived a profit of $1,000, which sum is alleged and claimed as damages, states a cause of action, and is free from misleading ambiguity or uncertainty.</p> <p>Id.—Uncertainty as to Damages on Third Count—Refusal of Leave to Amend—Permission on Reversal.—Where, in the third count of the complaint, it was alleged that by reason of the false publication charged therein, intended guests were dissuaded from coming to the hotel, and from paying plaintiff a specified sum, without specifically alleging damages in that or any other sum, a demurrer for uncertainty was properly sustained, but the court should not have sustained it without leave to amend; and although no leave was asked, this court, upon ordering a reversal of the judgment for other errors, will grant plaintiff leave to amend on the third count, by a specific allegation of damages therein.</p> <p>Id.—General Allegation and Proof of Damages—Names of Guests not Required.—A general allegation to the effect that a large number of persons were dissuaded, by reason of the false publication declared upon, from making any contract with or coming to the hotel, or giving it their patronage, and from paying to plaintiff a specified aggregate sum, is sufficient upon which to base a claim for damages, if alleged, and the damages may be proved by showing the existence of facts which would naturally tend to diminish and tear down the hotel business, followed by evidence that it was actually diminished and impaired thereby, without showing the specific name or personal description of each guest who was thereby driven away from the place, or prevented from coming there.</p>
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1964
5 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1906-10-16
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1 I concur in the judgment and in what is said in the opinion as to the first and second causes of action set out in the complaint. I am also of the opinion that the demurrer to the third cause of action was rightly sustained for the reasons stated in the opinion.
¶2 A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 13, 1906.