Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-09-28

OFFICIAL.
Opinions of the Supreme Court Of the State
Of Iennessees delivered at Jackson, at
April Terms 1858.
GUS J. DHAsoH plaintiff in error, THOMAS c. BAs De-
PENDANT in
/ This was an action on the case brought by the
defendant in errorand three Others for the abduc-
ton and eonoealment for the period OF one month Of
I his infant daughters. r--. .r. .. -...
The jury rendered verdict against the defendants
! jointly, for fgsHy thousand dollars damages The
defendants moved for new trial Upon the argu
ment Of said motion, the Judge stated, 'Ihat he
| would grant ne trial unless the plaintiff would
remit tEO thirds Of said verdict, and the plaintiff
thereupGu RENTED two thirds Of said verdict; and
the Court ordered the verdict 10 stand for Sc 500 So
and refused to grant q new trial" and rendered
judgment against the defendants jointly for that
cum. From which judgment, the defendant Branch
alone appealed in error 10 this Court
There is bill Of exceptions, containing the evil
deuce submitted to thsjury on the trial. from which
it seems-if the testimony is credited-to be case
of no ordinary turpitude and aggravstisn, on the
part Of the defendants But, for the purpose for
which the case is brought to this Court it does not
become necessary TO notice the proof particularly.
We not called upon to say, whether, In cur judg
ment, in view of all the circumstances Of the case,
the damages are excessive as TO demand that the
verdict should for that reason alone, have been set
aside altogether. H !
AuA II ID Luz SCI lvl1Ag FacedtA IA Aplo
that the to which the damages here RENTED is
disproporiiOned to the nature and extent Of the in
jury complained Of If the character, motives, and
conduct Of the defendants we're really such as the
jury in their view Of the evidence seem to have be-
hevsd. And upon this point we need only remark,
that if the plaintiff were entitled to recovery ct
all-snd this question is concluded by tbeyerdiet-
the amount Of damages to which the verdict was re-
dueed, was, in our opinion, BY no means immOd-
crate.
mi II
question Of Law, arising out Of the actIen Of the
Court on the motion for q new trial.
Il "a argued that the Judgment is illegal and
should be annulled because it is not the sentence Of
the law pronounced by the Court upon facts ascer-
tanned upon the verdict Of jury, in any other au
thorzed mode, but upon arbitrary determination
of the facts By the judge Alone in total disregard
Of the verdict. In other words that the iudge-iu
usurpstion of the province Of q jury-assumed the
province 10 assess the amount Of damages in case
for which the law had provided rule, or measure
Of damages other than the discretion of the jury
This, it is insisted, in direct violation Of the
fundamental principle which lies at the foundation
of our system Of Jurisprudence; by which the Judi
cisl power in controversies of this nature is dis
tributed between the judge and jury,-ths province
of the former, being the decision Of questions Of
Law; and Of the latter, the determination Of mat
tiers Of fact.
The objection involves the quesiion-Ehether IN
der system the Court possesses any control over
the action Of the jury-as regards the question Of
damages--in case like the present.
Il is not eontrOvertsd, IS we understand the ar
gument, that in all cases Of civil injury, breach
Of oOntraet-Which involve no element Of malice,
fraud Eanton or negligence, or other matter Of sg-
graVati0n-the rule Of damsges is q question Of
law; in such cases, fixed legal rule measure OF
compensation being prescribed which entities the
injured party to damages commensurate with the
loss sustained In such cases, it is admitted TO be
the duty and province Of the Court TO see that the
rule Of damages is properly applied BY the jury in
the given case. r
And, if, in disregard Of the rule excessive DANA
ges be found by the jury, it is conceded, that the
Court may, as matter Of law, q motion for
new trial, frame judgment 10 the proper amount
OF damages; and that if there be release Of the
damages to the proper measure, judgment may
properly be rendered An authority 10 thi; effect,
in an action sz contracts, has been produced. I
Towards Miss, r. 10, and in SedgWiek on Dam,
I'D edition) D. 603 il In said that this may be done
In actions Of tort as well in contracts. But the
cases to which he refers in support Of this assertion
have not been produced; nor has any case been pro-
dueed where such a course has been sanctioned in
an action of tort And it is insisted, that in cases
founded on personal wrong, where the Law has pre-
scribed no fixed rule, and the measure Of damages
exclusively in the discretion Of the jury, such
thing can be allowed: that in the latter class Of
cases. the Court cannot interfere, unless it be TO set
aside the verdict in toto, on che ground that the
damages are either grossly exOrbitant, or made
quate furnish Intrinsic evidence that the YER
dict was probably the result Of partiEty, passion,
corruption, or some improper motive or influence;
but that it is not within the province Of the Court,
in such cases, TO determine, or form judgment as
TO the measure Of damages
When it is admitted that the Court may set aside
q verdict in action Of pure tort; on the ground
that the damages, in the opinion Of the Judge, are
excesBive;-and this position cannot be questioned,
the question involved in this case, we hnk, IS con-
eeded.
The power Of the Judge TO set aside the verdict on
the ground that he considers the damages excessive
necessarily implies that it lie bisprovnee on the mo-
ton for new trial. to form judgment as to Whatun-
der all the circumstances OF the case, would De
reasonable damae es; and it, upon the suggestion Of
the Court, the damages be Voluntarily RENTED &c
that amount indca ed by the Court, we perceive no
wellfounded objection 10 the practice Of allowing
Judgment TO be rendered for the residue Of the dam
ages By this course, the delay and expense Of
another trial is saved TO the parties; and the defen
daut has no Just cause Of complaint, indeed the
rasidue of The dan aaes be not disproportioned 10
the nature of the injury, and be sufficiently sup
ported by the proof
the Court of the province Of the jury is not, in
opinion, well founded; and perhaps does not lie in
the mnufb Of the defendant. The facts of the case
were properIv su5utttdto, and passed upon by the
iurv The right Of the plaiaif TO recover damages
vas fxed by The jury, not by the Court. The Judge
merely expressed an opinion, TO the reasonable
ness Of the amount Of the damages assessed By the
iury as Of necessity he must do, the motion FOR
new trial and therefore release Of two thirds Of
/ the damsges vas executed by the plaintiff ihis
was no invasion Of the province Of The jury OF o.
the rights Of the defendant. Though the Judg nent
/ was for q smaller amount Of damages than found
/ by the jury stiH it judgment based upon me
verdict and MOI upon facts determined BY the Court
To deny the con rcl Of the Court over the action
Of the Jury to the extent eontended for IN the class
OF cases to which this belongs, would lead TO great
practical abuses.
/ Judgment affirmed. MChlNAAi'
Test: NJ D. WBLCH, CLERK
The Paris Academy Of Science has advertised its
prize amounting to about $50 900, for the discovery