Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1901

Rogers v. Cox

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided October 15, 1901 · Collins

66 N.J.L. 432; 50 A. 143; 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 72

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Tanana Trading Co. v. North American Trading & Transportation Co. (9th Cir. 1915)
McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde (Supreme Court of the United States 1994)
Boca Grande Club, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994)
Gelsmine v. Vignale (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
Aljian v. Ben Schlossberg, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1950)
Mandell v. Passaic National Bank & Trust Co. (Passaic County Circuit Court, N.J. 1940)
Westerhoff v. Citizens Trust Co. (N.J. 1936)
Stires v. Sherwood (Or. 1915)

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 opinion of the court was delivered by

Collins, J.

The claim in the brief of counsel for the defendant, that the declaration does not show a cause of action *434against the defendant, is not well founded. The case made is one of a joint tort in the publication of the alleged libel in the “Cranford Chronicle” on the date mentioned, the inspiration coming from the defendant and the newspaper being issued by Potter. It is expressly averred that the defamatory matter was communicated for the purpose of its publication in that newspaper. The pleas, therefore, are fairly before the court.

In case of joint tort-feasance satisfaction by anyone liable discharges the claim for damages. The injured person is legally entitled to but one satisfaction. This has been the law from very early times (Co. Litt. 232a, § 376; Cocke v. Jennor, Hob. 66), and is well established in this court. Spurr v. North Hudson County Railway Co., 27 Vroom 346. If the defendant be considered merely as the instigator of Potter’s tort, the case is not different. Bird v. Randall, 3 Burr. 1345.

A release under seal implies consideration. Hence, the plea of release in this case is an absolute bar to the action. The demurrer being addressed to the pleas jointly cannot stand, as one is good. Hudson v. Inhabitants of Winslow, 6 Vroom 437, 444. Therefore we have not considered the other plea.

The defendant is entitled to judgment.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.