Stroud v. Smith

Citations

• 194 Pa. 502
• 45 A. 329
• 1900 Pa. LEXIS 426

Syllabus

<p>Libel — Trade libel — Malice—Province of court and jury.</p> <p>In an action for libel-it appeared that defendants issued notices to plaintiff’s customers that the latter was infringing defendants’ patent, and threatening suit if plaintiff continued to make or sell goods covered by the patent. The statement was false, inasmuch as the patent had expired. Held, that the question whether the notices had a tendency to deter customers from buying, and whether the latter were in fact so deterred, was a question for the jury, and not for the court.</p> <p>Any error in giving instructions as to punitive damages is cured when the court, on plaintiff disclaiming such damages, said to the jury that, if this had come earlier, it would have saved much that he had stated, and told them, if they found for plaintiff, to give a verdict for the actual damages.</p> <p>In an action for trade libel where the plaintiff disclaims any demand for damages unless for malicious issue of the publication, and, even in such case, limits his demand for damages actually or specially suffered, the defendants cannot complain because the court charges that if the jury find that defendants did not make an honest mistake, but did it maliciously, they might give a verdict for the plaintiif for the amount of the actual damages.</p>