Cases

71 Ill. App.3d 972 (1979) 389 N.E.2d 1261 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEON MICHAEL DUNAGAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 76-624. Illinois Appellate Court — First District (4th Division). Opinion filed April 19, 1979. *973 *974 J. Samuel Tenen

Ellison, J. Plaintiff instituted an action of replevin to recover the possession of two mules and lost his case in 4he circuit court. The facts necessary to state to an understanding of our decision are these: In 1887, one Clifford was the owner of the mules and in that year gave to defendant a chattel mortgage on them to secure the payment of a note for about $114. The mortgage was not recorded until about fiv

The dictation of the libellous letter to the defendant's secretary, and the signing of it when typewritten constituted a publication of the libel. Pullmun v. Hill (1891), 1 Q.B. 524;Poe on Pleading, sec. 179; Odgers on Libel and Slander, ch. 6. A message sent by telegraph is actionable, because the contents of the telegram are necessarily communicated to all the clerks through whose hands it passes, and so with the postcard.Whitfield et al. v.

SATER, District Judge (after stating the facts as above). Exception to the competency of the evidence offered as to the respective morning and afternoon conversations held at the office of the Hatchers was sufficiently reserved on the grounds, that any communication made by the defendant at either of such meetings (1) was privileged on account of the mutual interest of the parties in the matter under ’discussion, and (2) was not

Mr. Justice Morris delivered the opinion of the Court! This is a suit for libel, in which the court below directed a verdict for the defendants ; and the cause is here on exceptions to that ruling. The libel complained of in the declaration is there stated to have consisted in the insertion of certain false, scandalous and defamatory matter in an answer filed by the defendant, Ellic S. Carrol

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 429 The paper prepared by the former counsel of the defendants and signed by them, in effect denominated the plaintiff a robber and a swindler. When such a paper is *Page 431 published, it is prima facie a libel (J'Anson v. Stuart, 1 T.A., 748), and the

MARSHALL, J. Plaintiff is the senior member of the firm of D. Sullivan & Go., which company is engaged in the banking business at San Antonio, Texas. Defendant is a business corporation, organized under the laws of Missouri, and A. D. Evans is its secretary. J. M. Ohittim is a large cattle dealer in Texas and held ten thousand dollars of the stock of the defendant company. Prior to the 24th of June, 1895, the defenda

Van Syckel, J. (dissenting). The alleged libelous publication was a printed communication published by a commercial agency in the city of New York, of which the defendants below were members. The publication was contained in what is known as a “ notification sheet,” by which the agency communicated to its subscribers information affecting the financial standing of merchants and traders in various parts of the country. The plaintif