Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Blackf. 426

Armentrout v. Moranda

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1847

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1847-07-01

<p>A publication to be a libel must tend to injure the plaintiff’s reputation, and expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Doe v. Methodist Hospital

Cited in Abbott (1879)’s definition of “Libel”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1847-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 2014

4 state decisions

20184718501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Blackford, J.

¶1This was an action for a libel. General demurrer to the declaration, and judgment for the defendant.

¶2The alleged libel, as shown by the declaration, is as follows: *427“ Mr. Armentrout (the plaintiff meaning), Sir, Have you any knowledge of those black cassinette pants of mine which you put into your bundle, when you moved to Mr. Allison’s from Mr. Brown’s the last time? Have you ambition sufficient to call a woman a liar? Bring back my breeches, and I will pay you the nails. — Moranda.”

J. Morrison, S. Major, and L. Barbour, for the plaintiff.W. Quarles, for the defendant.

¶3No extrinsic facts are alleged, nor is there any statement made as to the meaning of the charge. If the suit is sustainable, it is because the matter complained of, in itself, imports a libel. A libel is said to be a malicious defamation expressed in printing or writing, or by signs, pictures, &c., tending to injure the reputation of another, and thereby exposing such person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. 2 Selw. N. P. 1061. But that is not the character of the publication before us. There is here no charge of dishonesty, or of any other misconduct which could injure the plaintiff’s reputation.

Per Curiam.-

¶4-The judgment is affirmed with costs.

/8/blackf/426 · .json · Public domain