Case ID: va_19/html/0509-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Horner v. Marshall’s Administratrix.
    Decided, March 7th, 1817.
    1. Slander — Judgment against insane Person
      
       — Perpetual Injunction. It is a sufficient ground oí equity for a perpetual Injunction to a Judgment In slander, that, a,. the uime of speaking the defamatory words, and when the Judgment was obtained, the complainant in the bill (who was defendant at law) was insane, or in a state of partial mental derangement on the subject, to which those words related.
    Gustavus B. Homer presented a Will to the Chancellor for the Richmond District, praying an Injunction to stay proceedings on the two Judgments obtained against him, for defamation, by Charles Marshall and by Charles Marshall and wife, which, after the death of the said Marshall, had been revived by actions of debt, instituted by his widow and administratrix.
    The grounds of Equity stated in the Bill were, in .substance, that the complainant, at the time of speaking the wards, for which the actions of slander were brought, and when the Judgments were obtained, was in a state of partial mental derangement, occasioned by a domestic calamity; that Marshall himself was convinced of this, and, contented with receiving the costs only, declared his intention never to demand the damages recovered by those Judgments, which lay dormant from the year 1797 to 1807; but no written release was ever executed.
    
      
       Slander. See generally, monographic note on “Label and Blander” appended to Bourland v. Bid-son, 8 G-ra.lt. 21.
    
    
      
      Judgmcnt against Irme: Person — ReSiei —See footnote to Tabb v. Gist. 6 Gall 279.
      Insanity Presumption.- m Hiett v. Shull, 30 W. Va. 866, 15 S. Si. Rep. 147, it is said: "This prima facie presumption of sanity arises, even in cases of wills, where the factum is regular. But the presumption of law is always in favor of sanity when a deed or other instruments are brought iu question. See Jarrett v. Jarreti., 11 W. Va. 584, our leading case on the subject; Anderson v. Cranmer, H W. Va. 562: Nicholas v. Kershner, 20 W. Va. 251; Cunningham v. Hedrick, 23 W. Va. 579: Beverley v. Walden, 20 Gratt. 147: Tabb v. Gist, 6 Call 279; Horner v. Marshall, 5 Munf. 466; Busw. Ins. § 194 et sea.’. 11 Amer. & Eng. Ifinc. Law. 105; 1 Jarm. Wills (1380) p. 34, notes; Beverley's Case, 4 Coke. 123; Ewell, Lead. Gas. p. 522 et sea." See monographic nose, on “Insanity” appended to Boswell v. Com., 20 Gratt. 860.
    
    
      
      Injunction. — See monographic note on “Injunctions” appended to Clay tor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518.
    
   Chancellor Taylor refused, but the President of the Court of Appeals

(JUDGES ROANE, BROOKE, and CABEBB concurring, JUDGE COABTER being absent,)

granted the Injunction.

The cause was heard on the Bill, Answer, Exhibits and Examinations of Witnesses, by which the allegations in the Bill in relation to the partial mental derangement of the complainant, were amply supported; it appearing that, on the subject, to which the defamatory words related, he was insane, though his mind was sound in other respects. It appeared, also, in evidence, that Marshall refused to release the Judgments to Horner; determining to hold them as a security for his future good behaviour; though he repeatedly expressed an intention not to demand the money, and that his children never should receive it; and, sometime after the Judgments were obtained, "Horner and Marshall were publicly reconciled, and shook hands as a token of renewing their former friendship.

Chancellor Taylor dismissed the Bill with costs, from which Decree the complainant appealed.

The case was submitted here without argument; and, on the 7th of March, 1817, the Court reversed the Decree with costs, and, proceeding to make such Decree, as the Chancellor should have rendered, directed the Injunction to be re-instated and made perpetual; but, on the circumstances of the case, that the Appellant pay the costs in the Court of Chancery.