Case ID: ad_120/html/0387-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen R. Tobin, Respondent, v. Alfred M. Best Company, Appellant.
    First Department,
    June 21, 1907.
    Libel against partnership — publication libelous per se — each, partner may sue.
    A publication stating that a copartnership is connected in business with and pursues the methods of one who has been a notorious broker of bogus insurance and has been convicted for selling bogus policies, is libelous per se.
    
    A libel upon a firm is a libel upon each' partner, and each may'.maintain an action to recover the damage caused to his interest.
    ■ Appeal by the defendant, the-Alfred ML- Best Company, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 14th day off November, 1905, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term, overruling' the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint.
    
      Robert Van Iderstine, for the appellant. •
    
      ■ George M. Curtis, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam :

The complaint states a cause of action. It charges either directly or inferentially that the firm of Tobin & Tobin is. connected in business with and pursuing' the methods of one Anthony, who, according to the articles, has been notorious for years as a broker of bogus insurance; that he was once convicted for..selling “fake” policies and served a sentence in jail. The articles certainly have a tendency to injure. the business of the firm by charging that- the persons connected with it are not honest, and that the firm is doing a dishonest business. They are libelous yer se. Whatever injures the firm injures each partner, and each may maintain an action,to recover the damage caused thereby to his interest. (18 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law [2d ed.], 10.55.)

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, with leaye-to'the’ defendant'to withdraw its demurrer and interpose an answer on payment of costs ■ in this court and in the court below. . •

Present — Ingraham, McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and to answer on payment of costs.