{ "id": 1389759, "name": "Rachels v. Deener", "name_abbreviation": "Rachels v. Deener", "decision_date": "1930-12-15", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "931", "last_page": "934", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "182 Ark. 931" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "243 S. W. 74", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 Ark. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1361204 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/154/0462-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 333, "char_count": 4622, "ocr_confidence": 0.513, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1271224641441709e-07, "percentile": 0.574840656733269 }, "sha256": "c2a17e31b8360442543f5b974f8affbd6fe6c251d8d2ee909dbf8932af07c125", "simhash": "1:bc0c21d18d99c4e8", "word_count": 801 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:23.350304+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Rachels v. Deener." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McHaney, J.\nAppellant, who is a \"reputable lawyer of Searcy, Arkansas, sued appellees for damages, alleging that they had libeled him by writing, mailing and causing to be delivered the following letter:\n\u201cAugust 20, 1926.\n\u201cJ. C. Wyatt, Sec\u2019y & Treas.,\n\u201cUnion Trust Co.,\n\u201cCarthage, Mo.\n\u201cDear Sir: We are in receipt of your letter of the 18th asldng information concerning J. N. Rachels, attorney, of Searcy, Ark.\n\u201cMr. Rachels has lived in Searcy for the past twenty years. During this time he has been engaged in the practice of law. For four years he was district attorney; this position he filled with fair credit and satisfaction. Since that time he doesn\u2019t seem to have gotten on very well. He claims to have lost some money in the oil business. We have found it necessary to charge off some notes that he owed this bank as they were unoolleetable. Would suggest rather conservative dealings with him.\n\u201cWe ask that you keep this information strictly confidential. We really prefer your destroying this letter after it has served its purpose.\n\u201cTours truly,\n\u201cJ. H. Deener, Vice Pres.\u201d\nIt is alleged that the contents of said letter were false and malicious and known to be false by appellees; that it was written for the purpose of injuring\u2019 him in his good reputation, and of destroying confidence in blm as a lawyer; and that it constituted a libel on his character and reputation to his damage in the sum of $10,000, for which amount he prayed judgment. A demurrer was interposed and sustained to this complaint, one of the grounds of which was \u201cbecause the instrument set out in said complaint is not actionable, per se, and the complaint fails to allege any specific damage sustained by plaintiff.\u201d Appellant declined to plead further, and his complaint was dismissed. Hence this appeal.\nWas the publication of the above letter libelous pet se? If so, the demurrer was improperly sustained; but, if not so, then the complaint was open to demurrer in the absence of an allegation of special damages. Honea v. King, 154 Ark. 462, 243 S. W. 74. There was no such allegation. One sentence in the letter says that \u201cFor four years he was district attorney, this position he filled with fair credit and satisfaction.\u201d This, we take it, is complimentary. Next it says: \u201c(Since that time he doesn\u2019t seem to have gotten on very well.\u201d Nothing libelons about that. \u201cHe claims to have lost some money in the oil business.\u201d Nothing there to sustain an action for libel. \u201cWe have found it necessary to charge off some notes that he owed this bank as they were uncollectable. Would suggest rather conservative dealings with him.\u201d This is the most damaging statement contained in the letter, and it is not libelous per se, as, when analyzed, it amounts only to a statement that his credit at the bank is not so good as it once was. Our statute, (\u00a7 2390, O. & M. Digest), defines libel as follows: \u201c A libel is a malicious defamation, expressed either by writing, printing or by signs or pictures or the like, tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, veracity, virtue or reputation, or to publish the natural defects of one who is living, and thereby expose him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.\u201d In Honea v. King, supra, we held that in determining whether the written words are libelous, the entire article must be considered and construed, and the words used must be taken in their plain and natural meaning. When we have done this, we find nothing in the letter which tends \u201cto impeach the honesty, integrity, veracity, virtue or reputation\u201d of appellant, nor anything to \u201cexpose him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.\u201d True, the.letter states the bank holds some notes which were charged off because uncollectable. But that does not amount to a charge of dishonesty, nor impeach his integrity, for we all know that many honest men, men of high integrity, sometimes become unable to pay their honest debts. The words used do not impute to him a want of capacity or fitness to engage in his profession as a lawyer and nothing is said which can reasonably be construed to be a reflection on him in his professional capacity. The most that can be said is that there is an imputation of insolvency which is not actionable per se. 17 R. C. L., p. 307, \u00a7 47.'\nThe words used not 'being libelous per se, and there being no allegation of special damages, the complaint failed to state a cause of action, and the demurrer was properly sustained.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "McHaney, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "'J. N. Rachels, for appellant.", "Brundidge <& Neelly, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Rachels v. Deener.\nOpinion delivered December 15, 1930.\n'J. N. Rachels, for appellant.\nBrundidge <& Neelly, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0931-01", "first_page_order": 951, "last_page_order": 954 }