Definition
In legal usage, **crank** refers to a person of eccentric, erratic, or impractical mental habits — someone whose judgment is irregular or whose views are outside the accepted range of rational conduct, without necessarily implying full mental incapacity or clinical insanity. The term has appeared most often in defamation contexts, where courts have been called upon to assess whether calling a person a "crank" constitutes actionable slander or libel.
---
Common Language
**Modern common usage (Wiktionary):** To turn by means of a crank; to cause something to spin or operate; colloquially, to act in a cranky or irritable manner; to run at a high level of output or effort.
**Historical common usage (Webster's 1913):** A bent portion of an axle or shaft used to convert circular motion into reciprocating motion, or vice versa; also, a twist or turn in speech; a conceit or whim.
The mechanical and colloquial meanings familiar from everyday English are entirely absent from the legal usage. In law, the word functions exclusively as a characterization of a person's mental or temperamental state — not their mood in a moment of irritability, and not a piece of machinery. The legal question has always been whether applying this label to a person damages their reputation in the eyes of the community.
---
Common Confusion
**Crank vs. insane, lunatic, or mentally incompetent:** Courts have consistently held that calling someone a "crank" does not carry the legal weight of calling them insane, a lunatic, or mentally incompetent. Those latter terms have formal legal consequences — guardianship, testamentary incapacity, criminal irresponsibility. "Crank" carries none of those implications and has been treated as a term describing eccentricity or irregular habits of mind, not a diagnosed or legally recognized condition of mental derangement. Researchers should not treat historical uses of "crank" in sources as evidence of a formal legal finding of mental incapacity.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The primary significance of "crank" in the Law Mind corpus is its role in nineteenth-century defamation doctrine. The key analytical question was whether the word was actionable per se — that is, whether its mere utterance could support a defamation claim without proof of special damages. Courts concluded it was not: the term does not necessarily impute a crime, subject the person to public ridicule or contempt, or damage them in their trade or profession. Any defamatory effect, if alleged, had to be specifically averred and proven.
Researchers examining historical defamation materials should be alert to several traps. First, what courts considered actionable per se in slander has shifted considerably since the nineteenth century, and the tolerance for colorful personal characterizations in public discourse was treated differently depending on whether the subject was a public or private figure — a distinction that did not become constitutionally significant until the twentieth century. Second, "crank" appears in cases involving newspaper publications (the *Walker v. Tribune Co.* line of cases), which sits at the intersection of libel and early press freedom doctrine. Third, the word's proximity to terms of mental incapacity makes it easy to conflate with materials addressing competency, testamentary capacity, or criminal responsibility — researchers should check context carefully before treating a historical use of "crank" as bearing on legal capacity.
Jurisdictional variation in defamation doctrine means that what was non-actionable in a federal circuit court applying one state's common law may have had different treatment elsewhere. The absence of uniform defamation standards before the twentieth century makes geographic sourcing of historical cases particularly important.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries converge on the core proposition: "crank" in legal usage describes an eccentric or whimsical person and does not, by itself, carry defamatory force. Black's 2nd edition offers the fullest treatment, drawing directly from *Walker v. Tribune Co.* to establish that the term means something like "a monomaniac" or a person of "ill-regulated" mental habits — distinct from, and lesser than, clinical insanity or lunacy. Bouvier's is characteristically spare, identifying the word's meaning as a "whim," "caprice," or "vagary" and noting simply that the word has no necessarily defamatory sense. Anderson's contribution is the most analytically useful for defamation research: the explicit statement that "crank" does not necessarily imply criminality, nor tend to subject the person to ridicule or contempt, and that any such import must be specifically averred and proven.
What none of the historical dictionaries address is the procedural mechanism — the distinction between libel per se and libel per quod — that underlies the doctrinal conclusion they report. That gap is worth noting: researchers relying on these entries alone will understand the outcome but not the doctrinal framework explaining why. Contemporaneous treatises on slander and libel, rather than these dictionary entries, are the better source for that analysis.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The cases cited by the historical dictionaries arise from federal circuit courts and reflect the common law as applied in those jurisdictions in the late nineteenth century. Defamation law remained primarily state common law through this period, and not all jurisdictions adopted the same approach to words actionable per se. Researchers should not assume the "no necessary defamatory meaning" rule applied uniformly across all states.
---