Flood v. Evening Post Publishing Co.

Decided March 15, 1905

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1905-03-15

Before- DantzeER, J., Charleston, Action by Augustus M. Flood against Evening Post Publishing Co. From Circuit order sustaining demurrer, plaintiff ap-peals. (Same citations as in case of Wood against News and Courier Co.) cites: It is not libellous per se io apply to a white mam, the term “colored” or negro:” 1 McC., 52; 18 Ency., 2 ed., 916, 917, note; 1 McM., 16; 28 Am. R., 580; 29 Fed. R., 828; 1 N. & McC., 349; 28 N. E. R., 692; 17 N. Y., 493; 4 So. R., 71; 28 So-.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1957

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1905-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 The op-inion o-f the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Pope.

¶2 This case presents the precise question disposed of in the case of Augustus Flood v. The News and Courier Company, where the order sustaining the demurrer was reversed. Having overruled the demurrer in that case, it only remains for us, upon the authority of that case, to reverse the order sustaining the demurrer in this case.

¶3 *123 The judgment of this Court is, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, where it sustained the demurrer in this case, and the action is remanded to the Circuit Court for such other proceeding's as may be in accordance with law.

Messrs. Justices Gary, Jones and Woods concur in the result, as the complaint alleges that the publication zvas zvilful and malicious.