Case ID: va_18/html/0087-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cloud v. Campbell.
    Argued Thursday, March 3d, 1814.
    i. Covenant — Verdict for More Damages than Claimed — Effect,—In the action of covenant, a verdict for a larger sum than the damages laid In the declaration, or stated in the writ, must he set aside, and a new trial awarded. 
    
    An action of covenant was instituted against John Cloud, in the superior court of law for the county of Frederick, by Iver Campbell, administrator of Elizabeth Campbell deceased, who was a devisee and legatee in the last will of John Campbell, upon a covenant executed by the defendant and the said John Campbell in his life time. The breach of covenant charged was the failing to pay certain rents, and the not keeping in repair the premises demised : The damages laid in the declaration and writ were five hundred dollars.
    The defendant pleaded “covenants performed,” and “covenants not broken to which pleas the plaintiff replied generally. The jury found a verdict for 665 dollars 25 cents damages, with legal interest on 4'00 dollars, part thereof, from the 18th day of November 1788, until paid, and the like interest on 265 dollars 25 cents, the residue thereof, from the 11th day of August 1809, until paid ; for which, with costs, the superior court gave judgment; whereupon, a supersedeas was granted by this court, on a petition exhibited by the defendant.
    Williams for the plaintiff in error.
    George K. Taylor contra.
    *Friday, March 11th, 1814,
    
      
      See monographic note on “Covenant. The Action of” appended to Lee v. Cooke, 1 Wash. 306.
    
    
      
       Note. In Palmer & Eubank v. Mill, 3 H. & M. 503, it was decided that the writ might be referred to for the purpose of amendment. But in actions sounding in damages, the Jury cannot find more damages than are laid in the declaration and writ. The rule is otherwise in actions of debt upon bonds with collateral condition. See Payne v. Ellzey, 2 Wash. 143: Johnson v. Meriwether, 3 Call 523; Winslow and others v. the Commonwealth, 2 H. & M. 459.—Note in Original Edition.
    
   the president pronounced the court’s opinion, “that the said judgment is erroneous in this,, that the verdict has been found, and judgment rendered thereon, for a larger sum than the damages laid in the declaration, or stated in the writ.”

Judgment reversed, and a new trial awarded; “on which trial, the court, if required, is to instruct the jury that they are not to exceed in their verdict the amount of the damages laid in the declaration.” 
      
       Note. A copy ot the writ was inserted in the transcript of the record. A i udgment by nihil dicit was first entered against the deiendant, and writ of enquiry awarded ; which was afterwards set aside, upon the defendant’s appearing and pleading. But oyer was not prayed of the writ. Yet it seems, that it would have been considered part of the record for the purpose of amendment, if the damages laid there in had been equal to, or had exceeded, the sum found by the jury. — Note in Original Edition.