Dooling v. Budget Publishing Co.
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U. S., Inc. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1981)
- Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. (1st Cir. 2009)
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U. S., Inc. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1981)
- Kee v. Armstrong, Byrd & Co. (Okla. 1919)
- Direct Import Buyer's Ass'n v. K. S. L., Inc. (Utah 1977)
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1973)
- White v. Hanks (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1953)
- Fowler v. Curtis Publishing Co. (D.C. Cir. 1950)
- Stevens v. Storke (Cal. 1923)
- Flanagan v. Nicholson Pub. Co. (La. 1915)
- Victor Safe & Lock Co. v. Deright (8th Cir. 1906)
- HipSaver, Inc. v. Kiel (Mass. 2013)
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (Massachusetts District Court 1981)
- Kling v. Lyons (Mass. 1962)
- Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1945)
- Hehmeyer v. Harper's Weekly Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1915)
- Hopkins Chemical Co. v. Read Drug & Chemical Co. (Md. 1914)
- Larsen v. Brooklyn Daily Eagle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1914)
- Dust Sprayer Manufacturing Co. v. Western Fruit Grower (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)
- Marlin Fire Arms Co. v. . Shields (N.Y. 1902)
- Le Massena v. Storm (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1901)
- Bosi v. New York Herald Co. (New York Supreme Court 1901)
- Cherry v. Des Moines Leader (Iowa 1901)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The question is, whether the language used imports any personal reflection upon the plaintiff in the conduct of his business, or whether it is merely in disparagement of the dinner which he provided. Words relating merely to the quality of articles made, produced, furnished, or sold by a person, though false and malicious, are not actionable without special damage. For example, the condemnation of books, paintings, apd other works of art, music, architecture, and generally of the product of one’s labor, skill, or genius, may be unsparing, but it is not actionable without the averment and proof of special damage, unless it goes further, and attacks the individual. Gott v. Pulsifer, 122 Mass. 235. Swan v. Tappan, 5 Cush. 104. Tobias v. Harland, 4 Wend. 537. Western Counties Manure Co. v. Lawes Chemical Manure Co. L. R. 9 Ex. 218. Young v. Macrae, 3 B. & S. 264. Ingram v. Lawson, 6 Bing. N. C. 212. Disparagement of property may involve an imputation on personal character or conduct, and the question may be nice, in a particular case, whether or not the words extend so far as to be libellous, as in Bignell v. Buzzard, 3 H. & N. 217.
The old case of Fen v. Dixe, W. Jones, 444, is much in point. The plaintiff there was a brewer, and the defendant spoke of his beer in terms of disparagement at least as strong as those used by the present defendant in respect to the plaintiff’s dinner, wines, and cigars; but the action failed for want of proof of special damage.
In Evans v. Harlow, 5 Q. B. 624, 631,. Lord Denman, C. J., said: “ A tradesman offering goods for sale exposes himself to observations of this kind; and it is not by averring them to be @ false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory,’ that the plaintiff can found a charge of libel upon them.” ■
In the present case there was no libel on the plaintiff, in the way of his business. Though the language used was somewhat
Judgment on the verdict.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.