Case Name: Goodman vs. W. T. and E. Floyd
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1840-12
Citations: 2 Hum. 59
Docket Number: 
Parties: Goodman vs. W. T. and E. Floyd.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 59–61

Head Matter:
Goodman vs. W. T. and E. Floyd.
1. In fixing the value of a slave sued forin detinue, the Jury are not bound by the value laid in the writ and declaration, but may return a verdict for a larger amount; sectis, in regard to damages for the detention of such slave.
2. Whore, in an action of detinue, the jury gave the plaintiff judgment for the value of a slave and damages for the detention of him to a larger amount than was demanded in the plaintiff’s declaration: Held, that the court having reversed the judgment for such error should proceed to render such judgment as should have been rendered below, to wit., for the amount of damages claimed in the declaration ; provided the plaintiff would release the surplus.
This action of detinue was corntnenced in the county of Franklin, by W. T. & E. Floyd against John Goodman, on the 10th day of December, 1831, for the recovery of two slaves. The plaintiffs fix the value of slave Tony, in their writ and declaration, at $500, and Priscella at $300, and their damages at $500. After various continuances and trials the venue was changed to the county of Warren. At the April term, 1839, it was tried upon the plea of not guilty, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiffs for the slaves, which fixed the value of Tony at $550, and Priscella at $325, and ascertained the damages to be $585. The defendant did not appeal, but at a subsequent period presented his petition, accompanied with a transcript of the proceedings in the Circuit courts of Franklin and Warren to Judge Green, praying an order for writs of error and supersedeas, returnable to the next term of the Supreme court, for error apparent on the face of the record in this, to wit, that the value of the slaves as ascertained by the Jury, and the damages assessed for the detention thereof, were each greater in amount than the value and damages set forth in the plaintiff’s writ and declaration. Judge Green issued his fiat to the Clerk of the Supreme court, in accordance with the prayer of the petitioner, on the 25th August, 1840, and the cause was brought up.
James Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
Taul, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Tukley, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action for detinue, of two negroes, the value of which are specified in the writ and declaration. In the declaration the damages for the detention are laid at $500. In the verdict of the jury the value of the negroes is assessed at different and higher prices than that fixed by the declaration, and the damages for the detention are assessed at $585, being $85 more than the damages laid in the pleadings. And now two questions are made for the consideration of the court.
1st. It is said that a jury cannot in an action of detinue, find the value of the property sued for, greater than that which is affixed to it by the pleadings. To this we answer, that the action of deti-nue, being for the recovery of the specific thing sued for, does not sound in damages, and that, therefore, the value of the property detained, is not the thing recovered, but the thing itself. But in as much as a court of law has no power to enforce, under all circumstances, the delivery of the specific thing, it has been found necessary to have its value ascertained by the jury, so that money may be recovered in lieu thereof, if found necessary. And in as much as the object of the action is to get the thing, and not damages, the jury are warranted, in fixing its value, to give such amount, in reason, as will enforce its delivery. From this it follows, that the value of the thing at the time of the verdict, must be the medium by which the jury are to ascertain what amount of money is to be substituted in the place of the thing itself, provided it cannot be. had. If it has appreciated in value after the commencement of the suit, the appreciated value must be given by the jury; if depreciated, the depreciated value, and Avith such excess thereon as will, in their judgment, enforce the specific delivery, and this without regard to the value as laid in the pleadings. There is nothing in the authorities produced to the contrary, sustaining the position, assumed. They only prove that, in an action of detinue, the jury must assess the value of the property sued for, which is unquestionably true — because that is the only certain means by which the judgment of the court can be enforced.
2nd. It is said, the amount claimed-for the detention of the ne-groes is strictly damages, and unliquidated, and as such the jury cannot in the assessment go beyond the amount laid in the declaration, and of this opinion is the court.
When the damages for the detention of a debt are fixed by law, in the shape of interest, and nothing more is given, the court incline to think, that they follow as a consequence the principal, and may be given to a greater amount than laid, but when they are not given by law, and are at the discretion of the jury, it feels bound by the weight of authority to say, that they cannot be assessed beyond the amount claimed. Chitty's Plead. 130, 408.
The damages laid being $500, and the damages assessed being $585, the judgment of the court below must be reversed. But we are not left in the situation of a Court of Error in England, which as is correctly argued, cannot reduce the sum to the amount laid in the declaration, but may by our statute law, after having reversed the judgment of the inferior court, give such judgment as it ought, which would be for the amount claimed in the declaration, provided the plaintiff will release the surplus.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Circuit court, and at the option of the counsel for defendants in error, remand the cause for further proceedings or give judgment for the negroes at the value assessed by the jury, and $500 damages for their detention.