Slander of title consists of a false, malicious statement in writing, printing, or by word of mouth, injurious to any person’s title to property, and causing special damage to such person. If lands or chattels are about to be sold by auction, and a man declares in the auction-room, or elsewhere, that the vendor's title is defective, that the lands are mortgaged, or that the chattels are stolen property, and so deters people from buying, or causes the property to be sold for a less price than it would otherwise have realized, this is a slander upon the title of the owner, and gives him a prima facie claim for compensation in damages.1)
The plaintiff, in order to sustain the action, must essentially prove:
An action for slander of title differs from an action of defamation in several respects:
Plaintiff was possessed of certain shares in a silver mine, touching which shares certain claimants had filed a bill in Chancery, to which plaintiff had demurred. Held, that without alleging special damage, plaintiff could not sue defendant for falsely publishing that the demurrer had been over-ruled; that the prayer of the petition (for the appointment of a receiver) had been granted; and that persons duly authorized had arrived at the mine.10) Where defendants, coach-owners, used the name of a hotel on their coaches and the drivers' caps, so as to suggest that they were authorized and employed by the hotel-keeper to ply between the hotel and the railway station; but the plaintiffs were the coach-owners authorized and employed by the hotel; it was held that the defendants must not falsely hold themselves out as having the patronage of the hotel though they could freely compete with the plaintiffs for the carriage of passengers and goods to the hotel, and could advertise their intention of so doing in any honest way.11) Plaintiff had contracted for the purchase of certain wood, but he was unable to obtain delivery owing to defendant falsely alleging an agreement under which he had a lien on the goods for monies advanced to the plaintiff. Held, that there was a good cause of action for slander of title.12) A purchaser is not liable to an action at law for having depreciated to the vendor the value of the property, or its chance of sale;13) nor will the action lie against a stranger for preventing a sale by giving notice of his claim upon the estate, unless it be shown that such notice was given maliciously.14) If the defendant acted bona fide, the action could not be maintained, although a man of sound sense and a knowledge of business would not have uttered the slander.15)
The special damage must be proved, and that will, in part, be the measure of damages; this damage may consist in the property having on a sale realized a less price than it otherwise would; or in the owner being put to other necessary expenses in consequence;16) but another essential ingredient, which will also affect the measure of damages, is the presence of malice.17) The want of probable cause does not necessarily lead to an inference of malice neither does the existence of probable cause afford any answer to the action.18)