the evidence. * * * The words ‘falsely asserting’ then, when taken in connection with the subject-matter to which they relate, mean no more than that the proposition which he attempted to prove was a false one; that is, that the conclusion or inference which he drew was not justified by the facts.”
The alleged libelous words in this case were used in the course of a somewhat heated newspaper controversy. They were used, not as an original assertion, but as an answer to a statement made by the plaintiff. This appears from the article itself. All that a person who read the article in question would learn would be that the plaintiff in a former article had stated that he (the plaintiff) did things with all fairness, and that the defendant denied the correctness of that statement. In our opinion the trial court was correct in holding that the article was not libelous per se.
Judgment affirmed.
Bronson, Birdzell, and Robinson, JJ., concur.
Grace, C. J. (specially concurring). It is clear to my mind that the language alleged to be libelous per se cannot, by the greatest stretch of imagination, be said to be libelous.
BERNARD LECHLER, Respondent, v. MONTANA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OF HELENA, MONTANA, a Corporation, Appellant.
(186 N. W. 271.)
Insurance—insurer’s agent for soliciting insurance held insurer’s and not insured’s agent when soliciting reinstatement.
Action upon an insurance policy. The policy had lapSed for non- payment of the second premium. Agents of the insurance company solicited reinstatement and obtained the signature of the policy holder to a reinstatement blank, and a note for the premium, giving him as-
