Dunlap v. Sundberg

Citations

• 55 Wash. 609
• 104 P. 830
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 809

Syllabus

<p>Libel and Slander — Person Referred to — Pleading—Complaint —Sufficiency. A complaint in an action for libel fails to show that it was published of and concerning the plaintiff, a reputable and duly licensed physician, where the complaint alleges that the defendants, as physicians in an office building, signed and published a petition to the owners of the building reciting that they, as reputable physicians, desiring to uphold the honor of their profession, demanded the removal from the building of osteopaths .... criminal practitioners, medical institutes, advertising specialists, patent medicine fakirs, quacks, charlatans and other fraudulent concerns, and demanded the removal of all such persons and undesirable tenants, although the complaint further alleges that defendant intended thereby to refer to the plaintiff, who was not mentioned in the petition, and whom the complaint alleges to be a reputable and duly licensed physician.</p> <p>Same. Bal. Code, § 4938, providing that in libel it is not necessary to state in the complaint any extrinsic facts to show the application of the libel to the plaintiff, but it shall be sufficient to state such fact generally, does not obviate the necessity of pleading that the publication was so understood by persons seeing it; and a complaint is insufficient, although it contains such general allegation, where it negatives the fact that plaintiff was referred to in the defamatory matter.</p>