Case ID: scl_12/html/0015-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Cokock\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francis Laborde vs. C. Rumph.
    in an action of detinue, the damages were laid in the declaration to be only one hundred dollars, and the verdict was for the article detained or its value g 100, and g.ldO damages; held that it was not a cause for arrest of judgment, on the ground that the verdict exceeded the amount of damages laid in the declaration.
    TfilS was an action of detinue to recover a horse. The property was proved the plaintiff’s; and a demand of him on the defendant was made: It also appeared that the plaintiff had been long deprived of his use. The verdict was for the plaintiff for the horse, or if he could not be had, for g 100, which was fixed as his value, and also for $ 100 damages.
    A motion in arrest of judgment was now made on the ground, that the'verdict exceeded the amount of damages' laid in the declaration.
   Mr. Justice Cokock

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Upon an inspection of the record, it appears that the action is properly brought, and that the declaration charges the detention of the horse, whose value is stated at $ 100, and it concludes to the damage of the plaintiff, one hundred, dollars. The verdict is in strict conformity with the pleadings and the lav/. It finds the property to be in the plaintiff, and adds, as all verdicts in detinue do, a finding for the value of the horse if he can not he had. If then proceeds to the damages, and estimates them at $ 100.-— The judgment is entered up for the horse, and damages and costs. The action being for the specific article, that, or the value of it, is not considered as forming any part of the damages. The verdict then is not as was supposed for a greater amount of damages than laid.

The counsel for the defendant also stated in his brief, as a ground for a new trial, that there was no evidence of the amount of damage sustained by the plaintiff. But as it, was merely brought to the view of the Court, and was no» much relied o’ti, it is unnecessary to go into a detail of the evidence. It is sufficient fo say that the testimony was of such a character as would, in my opinion, have authorized the jury in estimating the damages at two hundred dollars, had the pleadings*permitted them to go to the extent. The motion is dismissed.

Justices Ñott, Gantt, Johnson and llug'er, concurred.