Case ID: nc_201/html/0601-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Pee, CueiaM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

H. A. SOMERS v. UNIVERSAL CREDIT COMPANY.
    (Filed 4 November, 1931.)
    Damages E a — Evidence held insufficient to support issue as to punitive damages.
    Punitive damages for the wrongful seizure of the plaintiff’s car are not recoverable when the evidence tends to show that the car was seized with the consent of the plaintiff, and where the jury awards punitive damages on such evidence in addition to compensatory damages for the wrongful seizure, the judgment rendered on the verdict will he modified by striking out the answer to the issue relating to the punitive damages.
    Appeal by defendant from Frizzelle, J., at Second May Term, 1931, of AlaMANOE.
    Modified and affirmed.
    The jury returned the following verdict:
    1. Did the defendant wrongfully seize the car of plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.
    2. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover as com-piensatory damages? Answer: $149.00.
    3. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover as punitive damages. Answer: $500.00.
    4. In what amount, if any, is the plaintiff indebted to the defendant on the contract price of the automobile? Answer: Nothing.
    Judgment for the plaintiff; appeal by the defendant.
    
      Leivis C. Allen for appellant.
    
    
      John 8. Thomas for appellee.
    
   Pee, CueiaM.

We have discovered no evidence sufficient to sustain tbe answer to tbe third issue. His Honor instructed tbe jury to award punitive damages if they found from tbe evidence that tbe defendant seized tbe car in a rude and oppressive manner indicating malice, wantonness, and ill-will. Tbe plaintiff testified that be laid tbe car key on bis counter and said to tbe defendant’s agent, “If be desired to take it, there it was; if be wanted to take tbe car, there was tbe key; if be desired to take it, there it was.” This was equivalent to consent.

Tbe jury awarded compensatory damages possibly because tbe plaintiff subsequently told tbe agent not to take tbe car away.

Tbe answer to tbe third issue will be stricken out, and as thus modified tbe judgment is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.