Hinkle v. Alexander — Case Summary
Summary of the case Hinkle v. Alexander
In this libel action, the plaintiff, a contract logger, appealed after the court allowed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendant. The defendant, who operated a restaurant, posted a notice claiming the plaintiff owed a debt after an employee failed to pay. The court affirmed that the publication of non-payment of a debt is not libelous per se, referencing Hudson v. Pioneer Service Co.
Key Issues of the case Hinkle v. Alexander
- Whether the publication of non-payment of a debt is libelous per se
Key Facts of the case Hinkle v. Alexander
- Plaintiff's employee obtained credit and failed to pay
- Defendant posted a notice claiming plaintiff owed the debt
Decision of the case Hinkle v. Alexander
Affirmed
Opinions
SLOAN, J. This was a libel action. A jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. The court allowed a motion for judgment n.o.v. Plaintiff appeals.
Defendant operated a restaurant, plus sleeping facilities, in Estacada which was primarily patronized by loggers working in the area. Frequently he would allow credit to his customers if the employer of the particular customer would agree to pay the bill. Plaintiff was a contract logger. One of plaintiff’s employees obtained credit from defendant and failed to pay.
Plaintiff had not previously agreed to pay the bill of this employee. Defendant sought payment of plaintiff and plaintiff refused. Defendant then posted a notice in his place of business which contained the unpaid bill with the words “Wayne Hinkle owes this to us” written on the face of the bill. This is the claimed libel.
On this appeal plaintiff’s only argument is that the words were actionable per se. This case is, therefore, governed by Hudson v. Pioneer Service Co., 1959, 218 Or 561, 346 P2d 123, where it was held that publication of non-payment of a debt, except within circumstances not presented here, is not libelous per se. Affirmed.