Case ID: scl_1/html/0490-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Grimke and Bay, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roulain against M’Dowall.
    A jury may give damages for the detention of the debt, beyond the amount mentioned in the obligation.
    A verdict may be amended from the judge’s notes.
    THIS was an action upon a single bond, for 150/. which was given in part consideration for a tract of land. There was, however, a condition to this bond, that if the defendant would build a house of certain dimensions, mentioned in the condition, within a certain time, it should be accepted in lieu of the above sum of 150/.
    The plaintiff declared in the usual form on the bond, and laid his damages at 20/. On the trial it was admitted that the sum of 150/. was bona Jide due, and that it was not inserted by way of penalty ; and further that the house agreed to be accepted in lieu of it, had not been built. But it was insisted on for the defendant, that the plaintiff could not recover more than the sum mentioned in the bond. That he must recover in numero, as the debt was ascertained and ffxed,
   Grimke and Bay, J.

who tried the cause, were of opinion, that this was in nature of a single bill, and not a penalty for performance of covenants; and that the jury, therefore, although confined to the sum mentioned in the bond, yet they might give damages for the detention, if they thought it proper and reasonable, to the amount laid in the declaration,

The jury found accordingly for the plaintiff, 170l. but in their verdict did not distinguish between the debt, 150/, and the sum off 20/, as damages for tbe detention,

Trezevant, for the plaintiff,

then moved for leave to amend the verdict from the judge’s notes, as it was obvious that the jury intended the sum of twenty pounds as da» mages for the detention ; and for this purpose, 2 Str. 119 7. 2 Burr. 899. 1. 1 Will. 33. Hen. Black. Rep. 78. and 3 Morg. 104, 105. were all relied on as in point.

A motion, was afterwards made to set this verdict aside, as against law. But

The Court

(present Burke, Wattes, and Bay, Justices)

were clear in opinion, that the jury acted right in finding damages for the detention of this debt to the amount laid in the declaration ; and indeed, if the damages had been laid to a- higher amount, they might have gone as far as would have covered the legal interest due on the debt, But that they ought to have severed and found the da* mages distinct from the debt. Bull. 178. 1 Esp. 306, 307. Say. on Dam. 63. Lord Raym. 773.

This was accordingly done from the notes of Bay, J. who sat at the trial.

Motion to set aside the verdict discharged.