Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Somerville v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins.

149 F.2d 836

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1945-06-04
Topic
estate-planning

PER CURIAM. One part of the language on which the plaintiff relied in this action for libel was incapable of a defamatory meaning. The other part was obviously true. Regardless of the defense of privilege, therefore, the District Court was right in directing a verdict for the defendant. Meyerson v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Somerville v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
SOMERVILLE v. ACACIA MUT. LIFE INS. CO.,149 F.2d 836(D.C. Cir. 1945)
SOMERVILLE v. ACACIA MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
No. 8864.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
June 4, 1945.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Action by James W. Somerville against Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company for libel. The district court directed a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.
Mr. James W. Somerville, pro se.

Messrs. Roger J. Whiteford and John J. Wilson, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before MILLER, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
One part of the language on which the plaintiff relied in this action for libel was incapable of a defamatory meaning. The other part was obviously true. Regardless of the defense of privilege, therefore, the District Court was right in directing a verdict for the defendant. Meyerson v. Hurlbut,68 App.D.C. 360,362,98 F.2d 232, 118 A.L.R. 313; Sullivan v. Meyer,67 App. D.C. 228,91 F.2d 301; cf. Sullivan v. Meyer, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 367,141 F.2d 21.

Affirmed.Page 837