Case ID: scl_4/html/0045-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1806.
    Sanders v. Egerton.
    Where damages are given in trespass for the value of goods destroyed, or lost, by means of the, trespass, the verdict and recovery may be pleaded in bar to an action of trover for the same trespass, or conversion. '
    
      Note. In trespass of goods taken, plaintiff shall recover the value of the goods, unless defendant re-ha-s them-. If plaintiff ye-has his goods, and yet pro-eeeds in his action, defendant shall give this in evidence, to ease him of the damages. Br. Gen. Issue, pi. 11 See 12 Vin. Abr. 158.
    
      Motion for a new trial. Trespass vi et armis for taking away cattle. The Judge, Trezevant, at the trial, directed-the jury, that if they believed the plaintiff had lost his cattle by the trespass of the defendant, that he was intitled to their value, as well as damages for the outrage ; and the jury found accordingly.
    Richardson, in support of the motion,
    contended, that the judge had misdirected the jury, for that damages were recoverable for the trespass, only, and not for the value of the cattle, for the cattle may still be recovered, or their value, in trover ; and the verdict in trespass cannot be pleaded in bar.
    Witherspoon, on the other side,
    cited 8 Wils. 304. A recovery in trover may be pleaded in bar to an action of assumpsit, if the same evidence be applicable to both actions ; and no man shall be permitted to recover twice for the same cause of action : nemo debet bis vexari. 6 Co. 7. Expedit reipmblicai ut sit finis litium. Thé prin-pie appl es in this case.
   The court

(Grimke, Waties, Bay, Brevard, and Wilds, Justices.)

A recovery in trespass may be pleaded in bar to an action for the same goods, for the taking whereof the damages in trespass have been recovered, if it should appear the goods have been destroyed or converted, jsa that the owner has not repossessed himself of them, and that the damages were given as well for the property as for the trespass. The direction therefore was right.

New trial refused.

If a man bring trespass and recover, he can never afterwards maintain trover ; but the former action is a good plea in bar to the latter. See Gilb. Ev. Lofft’s ed. 2 vol. 533. See 1 Com. Dig. 153. 3 Wils. 304.