Case Name: THE KNICKERBOCKER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY against ECCLESINE
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1871-12
Citations: 11 Abb. Pr. 385
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE KNICKERBOCKER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY against ECCLESINE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Abbott's Practice Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 385–389

Head Matter:
THE KNICKERBOCKER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY against ECCLESINE.
New York Superior Court;
General Term, December, 1871.
Arrest.—Libel.—Complaint.
Upon proof of special damages, a corporation may sustain an action for libel.
The complaint, in an action for libel upon a corporation, must set forth special damages, if the matter is not libelous per se, and may, on motion, be required to be made more definite and certain by particularizing the times and places of incurring such damage.
The provisions of the Code of Procedure, authorizing arrests in civil actions, do not give the plaintiff a right to arrest the defendant, but it rests in the sound discretion of the judge to grant or refuse an order.
The exercise of this discretion in granting the order, by the judge to whom application for an order of arrest is made, may be reviewed by another judge at special term, upon a motion to vacate the order.
A defendant arrested, does not, by giving bail, preclude himself from questioning the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, or original affidavits made to obtain the order.
Appeal from order vacating order of arrest; and,
Appeal from order directing the complaint to be made more definite and certain.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs against Joseph B. Bcclesine, to recover one hundred and thirty thousand dollars, alleged damages asserted to have been sustained by reason of divers alleged libelous publications, whereby persons were induced to refuse to make applications for insurance, &c., of and concerning the plaintiffs, contained in a chart of life insur anee companies, annually published by the defendant, and in which is embodied a brief synopsis of the annual returns of such companies organized or doing business in the State of Hew York, for the year ending December 31, 1867, and also in three advertisements contained in different public journals published in this city inserted by the defendant with the view of calling the attention of the public to his said chart for the purposes of sale, in which advertisements were embodied the essential points affecting the plaintiff’s company and claimed by them as libelous in the chart.
Upon a complaint embracing five causes of action, an affidavit of the president of plaintiff’s company alleging the falsity of some of the facts stated in defendant’s publications, and an affidavit of plaintiff’s counsel referring to and annexing copies of correspondence had between him and the defendant prior to the suit, and also annexing the alleged libelous matter, an order of arrest was obtained from one of the judges of this court directing the sheriff to arrest the defendant and hold him to bail in ten thousand doEars.
The defendant moved upon affidavits to vacate the said order of arrest, and the motion was opposed by further affidavits.
The motion was granted, and the order vacated. Reported in 6 Abb. Pr. N. S., 9, where the facts wiE more fully appear.
An order to that effect was entered, and from that plaintiff appealed.
Defendant subsequently moved to have the averment of damage, at the end of each count, made more definite and certain. The motion was granted, and an order made, directing the complaint to be made more definite and certain, by setting out the names of the persons refusing to make application for insurance, and the particular premiums and amounts thereof, which it was claimed the company would have received, had it not been for the publication of the alleged false matter.
From this order also the defendant appealed.
H. W. Johnson and A. J. Vanderpoel, John K. Porter and Thomas Darlington, for the appellant.
Alexander & Green, D. McMahon and H. A. Cram, for the respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court.—Monell, J.
I think both orders should be affirmed; the order discharging the arrest for the very satisfactory reasons stated by the learned justice at special term, and the other for the reason that if the averment of special damage is made definite in the particulars specified in the order, there will be a prima facie cause of action against the defendant. We all agree, that without proof of special damage the action cannot be maintained: in other words, we agree that with proof of special damage it may be maintained. As an allegation in a pleading, I think it would be sufficient, if it contained the matter required by the order, and that, it seems to me, is the only question before us on this appeal. The matter alleged against the defendant is not per se libelous ; but if the plaintiffs can satisfy a jury that such matter is injurious to them and was maliciously published, they can recover if they also show that they have been specially damaged.
Ereedmak, J., concurred.
Present, Monell, Jones and Freedman, JJ.