Cited by

Perhaps the clearest statement of Minnesota’s common law position is the statement of Justice Mitchell in Byram v. Aikin, 65 Minn. 87 , 67 N.W.

Assn. 236 Minn. 507 , 53 N. W. (2d) 230 ; Craig v. Warren, 99 Minn. 246 , ; Byram v. Aiken, 65 Minn. 87 , .

Byram v. Aiken, 65 Minn. 87 , Rudawsky v. Northwestern Jobbers Credit Bureau, 188 Minn. 21 , .

Among them are the following decisions: Pratt v. Pioneer Press Co. 30 Minn. 41 , ; Dennis v. Johnson, 42 Minn. 301 , ; Byram v. Aiken, 65 Minn. 87 , ; McDermott v. Union Credit Co. 76 Minn. 84 , , ; Keating v. Prudential Cas.

As said by Justice Mitchell in Byram v. Aiken, 65 Minn. 87 , , 808: “In this respect, libel differs from slander, where the law, in respect to our natural passions, gives no action for mere defamatory words, which it considers as transitory abuse, and not having substance and body enough to constitute an injury by affecting the reputation.” Tested by these rules

Malice may be proved by extrinsic evidence of personal ill feeling, or by intrinsic evidence such as the exaggerated language of the libel, the character of the language used, Byram v. Aiken, 65 Minn. 88 , , the mode and extent of publication, and other matters in excess of the privilege.

This court held in Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Hutchins, 65 Minn. 89 , , contrary to the weight of authority (see Williston, Sales, § 487; Redlands Orange Growers’ Assn. v. Gorman, 161 Mo.

141, ; Petsch v. Dispatch Printing Co. 40 Minn. 291 , ; Bram v. Aitken, 65 Minn. 87 , ; Wilcox v. Moore; 69 Minn. 49 , ; Sharpe v. Larson, 67 Minn. 428 , ; State v. Shippman, 83 Minn. 414 , ; Craig v. Warren, 99 Minn. 246 , ; Tawney v. Simonson, W. & H. Co. 109 Minn. 341 , , 27 L.R.A.

Byram v. Aiken, 65 Minn. 87 , ; Davis v. Hamilton, 85 Minn. 209 , .

As to what constitutes such words, Mr. Justice Mitchell said, in Byram v. Aiken, 65 Minn. 87 , : “Written publications calculated to expose one to public contempt or ridicule, and thus induce an ill opinion of him, and impair him in the good opinion and respect of others, are libelous, although they involve no imputation of crime, and are actionable without any allegation of special damages.” “It

Among others may be cited McDermott v. Union Credit Co., 76 Minn. 84 , , ; Byram v. Aiken, 65 Minn. 87 , ; Sharpe v. Larson, 67 Minn. 428 , ; Trebby v. Transcript Pub.

Holston v. Boyle, 46 Minn. 432 , ; Dressel v. Shipman, 57 Minn. 23 , ; Wilkes v. Shields, 62 Minn. 426 , ; Byram v. Aiken, 65 Minn. 87 , ; Peterson v. Western U. Tel.