## Facts

- A wine merchant imported and sold champagne in England under the designation “Delmonico.”
- A French champagne producer (or its London agent), claiming control of the “Delmonico” designation, published a notice about the merchant’s product.
- The notice asserted that the merchant’s “Delmonico” champagne was not genuine and that the merchant was fraudulently using the trade-mark/designation.
- The merchant alleged the statements were false and malicious, disparaged his goods and right to use the designation, and caused pecuniary loss in his trade.
- After the merchant died during the proceedings, his executrix was substituted as plaintiff and sought to continue the damages claim.
- The trial court entered a nonsuit on the ground that the cause of action did not survive the merchant’s death.

## Issues

1. Whether a claim based on a false and malicious publication injurious to a trader’s goods/trade-mark and causing pecuniary loss survives the trader’s death.
2. Whether such a claim is properly characterized as non-surviving personal defamation or as a proprietary/commercial wrong affecting the estate (malicious falsehood/slander of goods or title).

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the nonsuit.
- The court held that the cause of action survived the trader’s death and could be continued by the executrix.
- The claim was treated as concerning commercial/property interests (trade-mark and goodwill) rather than a purely personal injury.
- Continuation of the action remained subject to proof of the substantive elements and resulting pecuniary loss.

## Legal Principles

- A false and malicious publication that disparages a trader’s goods or trade-mark and causes pecuniary loss is a commercial/proprietary wrong, not merely personal defamation.
- Because the alleged injury is to business assets and the estate (including goodwill and trade value), the right of action survives to the personal representative.
- Liability in this category generally requires falsity, malice (lack of honest belief or improper motive), and special damage in the form of actual pecuniary loss caused by the publication.

## Conclusion

The court held that an action for false and malicious disparagement injuring a trader’s goods or trade-mark and causing pecuniary loss is transmissible on death, allowing the executrix to continue the claim because it concerns property and commercial interests rather than personal reputation alone.


Hatchard v. Mege, (1887) 18 Q.B.D. 771 (Q.B. 1887)