Koontz ex rel. Koontz v. Weide
Citations
- 111 Kan. 709
- 208 P. 651
- 1922 Kan. LEXIS 329
Syllabus
<p>syllabus by the court.</p> <p>1. Slander — Words Charging a Felony — Actionable Per Se. In this action for • slander the words used by the. defendant are held to have charged the plaintiff with a felony and of themselves were actionable.</p> <p>2. Same — Admission of Evidence — Rulings. Rulings on the admission of evidence examined and held to be without material error.</p> <p>3. Same — No Error in Instructions. Instructions relating to the slander charged and established by the evidence examined and held to be without prejudicial error.</p> <p>4. Same — No Release or Bar to Recovery of Damages Shovm. After discovering that the crime which defendant had imputed to plaintiff had not been committed, defendant apologized to plaintiff for the wrong and with it gave him a dollar which was retained for a few hours and then returned. Held, that the gift, under the circumstances, did not constitute a release or bar a recovery for slander as there could be no release unless there was a meeting of the minds of the parties and a mutual understanding that the payment and acceptance of the money was in settlement of defendant’s liability.</p> <p>5. Same — Apology or Retraction No Defense. The apology or retraction of defendant did not operate as a bar to a recovery of damages and was only admissible as tending to show an absence of malice and in mitigation of damages.</p> <p>6. Judgment — Return of Verdict — Duty of Clerk to Enter Judgment. Upon a return of a verdict it is the duty of the clerk to enter judgment in conformity to the verdict unless an order is made reserving the case for future argument or consideration.</p> <p>7. Same — Interest on Judgment. Plaintiff in whose favor a verdict is returned cannot be deprived of interest on his judgment by the failure of the clerk to enter the judgment as the law directs.</p> <p>8. Same. A judgment entered allowing interest thereon from the time of the verdict is held not to be erroneous although a motion for a new trial was fil
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- a retraction does not bar the recovery of damages but may mitigate damages or tend to show an absence of malice
- a retraction does not bar the recovery of damages but may mitigate damages or tend to show an absence of malice
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Johnston
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Gow v. Multnomah Hotel, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court· 1951-03-07· cited 62×
- McGuire v. SifersSupreme Court of Kansas· 1984-04-27· cited 40×
- Han Ye Lee v. Colorado Times, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals· 2009-10-29· cited 35×
- Sweaney v. United Loan & Finance Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1970-04-11· cited 28×
- Kraisinger v. LiggettCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1979-03-30· cited 16×
- Degnan v. Young Bros. Cattle Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1940-07-06· cited 12×
- Burke v. Board of Education of Common School District No. 110Supreme Court of Kansas· 1957-07-03· cited 11×
- Reel v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1964-03-07· cited 3×
- Turner v. George Rushton Baking Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1934-05-05· cited 3×
- Priest v. Kansas City Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas· 1925-10-01· cited 1×
- Burke v. BD. OF EDUC. OF COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 110Supreme Court of Kansas· 1957-07-03
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.