The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-06-02
OCTOBER TERN, 1866.

New Orleans, jackson and Great
Northern Railroad VS.. Lucy 7. Moore
ct al.
OPINION OF THE COURT DELIVERED
by JUDGE HARRIS.
The defendants in error filed their
complaints in the Circuit Court of
Copian county, to recover Of the
plaintiffs in error, as common car
riers, the value of trunk and its
contents, delivered to the plaintiffs
in error, to be transported by them
on their railroad to jackson, Missis-
sippi, from Hazlehurst, in the county
of Copiah, which, il is alleged,
through the carelcssncss, negligence,
and default of the plaintiff in error,
were wholly lost to the defendants in
error.
To this complaint the plaintiffs in
error filed two answers, the first say
ing that they are not guilty of the
wrong and injury alleged in the CON-
plaint, and the second denying the
delivery to, or receipt by them of the
goods in the declaration mentioned,
or any part thereof, to be carried and
and delivered, &C., as complained in
the declaration.
Upon these issues, there was a Jury
and verdict for the defendants in
error, and a motion for new trial,
which was referred. The plaintiff in
error excepted, and filed their bill Of
exception, and now prosecute their
writ Of error here TO revise the judg-
ment below.
The first error assigned is that the
court erred in refusing to exclude on
motion Of the plaintiffs in error, tes-
timony tending to prove other DANA
ges than the trunk and its contents.
The defendant in error offered 10
prove, as appears by this bill Of ex-
ceptions, that she expended from one
hundred to one hundred and twenty
five dollars for clothing, shoes, &c,
to supply her immediate wants, occa-
stoned by the loss of the trunk. To
the introduction Of this testimony
plaintiffs in error objected-the OBJ
lection was overruled by the Court
and testimony admitted. This wa
clearly erroneous. This was an actor
to recover damages for a breach o
contract--no special damages are al
legged in the complaint. The valu'
Of the trunk and It's contents within
the rule limiting this responsibilit,
and requiring the transportation o
usual passengers baggage, by com
mon carriers Of such,) is all that cal
be recovered in this form Of action
To allow the defendants in error :
recover for clothing, DC, to suppl.
her immediate wants, and also 70
} those that were lost, would be, to tha
} extent, to charge the plaintiffs i
: error double damages for the article
: lost and replaced.
It was further proposed to be pre-
! ven what would be reasonable attoI
! ney's fees for prosecuting a suit I
t this kind, and the evidence objecte
5 70, and the objection overruled.
This was also erroneous, for u
e same reasons. The action is not
: tes, but for breach Of contract, an
|. the actual ddmags arising from u
y breach, as The measure Of recovei
@ In this form Of action.
n The second assignment Of error
= that the jury were instructed th
+ they might assess damages for attic
Ig neys fees, and asaess exemplary
ID well as actual damages. We ha
h already seen that this was erroneal
y The third assignment Of error
he that the court refused TO instruct |
= Jury that The defendants below VI
N only responsible 10 the passenger
G. the losz Of such rsasanahle amount
NJ such haguagc 10 include such artie
y =