Case Name: McGhee & Powell v. Smith & Shoemaker
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1871-10-11
Citations: 6 Heisk. 315
Docket Number: 
Parties: McGhee & Powell v. Smith & Shoemaker.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 315–317

Head Matter:
McGhee & Powell v. Smith & Shoemaker.
1. Pleading. To a declaration alleging a trespass to have been committed July 1st, 1862, the defendants pleaded that “the trespass was not committed within three years before the adoption of the amended Constitution of the State of Tennessee.”
Held, 1. If the Constitution of 1865 was intended, the plea was clearly bad, the fact pleaded appearing on the face of the declaration.
2. But the plea fails to show what amendment is meant, and is therefore had for uncertainty.
2. Damages. When the evidence as to the value of the property alleged to have been taken is conflicting, it is error to leave the jury, without special instructions as to the rules of law applicable in such cases, to agree without regard to the evidence upon any amount of damages not exceeding that claimed.
See N. & C. B. B. Co. v. King and Posten- v. Collins, ante.
EROM KNOX.
Appeal in error from the judgment of the Circuit Court, June- Term, 1868. E. T. Hall, J.
Brown for tlie plaintiff in error, insisted:
1. That the plea was a good plea of the statute of limitations.
2: That in view of the conflict of evidence, it was error, without special instructions, to tell the jury that they might allow any amount of damages not exceeding that claimed.
An anonymous brief for the defendant in error discussed tbe evidence fully, and insisted that the verdict was clearly supported by it.

Opinion:
NicholsoN, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Smith & Shoemaker sued McGhee & Powell, in trespass, for taking and carrying away, and converting to their own use, a steam engine and other personal property. The trespass is alleged in the declaration to have been committed on the 1st of July, 1862.
Defendants put in three pleas — not guilty — that the trespass was not committed within three years before the adoption of the amended Constitution of the State of Tennessee; and that they had not been guilty of the wrongs complained of within three years next before the 6th of May, 1861.
Complainants took issue on the first and third pleas and demurred to the second. For causes of demurrer to the second plea, plaintiffs show that said plea is frivolous and immaterial, and that it is uncertain, inasmuch as it does not specify which amendment of the Constitution is referred to.
Upon argument, the court sustained the demurrer, and this is the first error relied on for reversal. There was no error in this ruling of the court. The declaration alleged that the trespasses were committed on the 1st of July, 1862. The plea was that defendants did not commit them within three years before the adoption of the amended Constitution of Tennessee. If the amended Constitution of 1865 was referred to by the plea, .then the plea was immaterial, as it appeared by the declaration three years had not elapsed from the time of committing the trespasses until the adoption of the amended Constitution of 1865, nor until the commencement of the suit. But it does not appear from the plea what amendment of the Constitution was referred to, and for uncertainty it was de-murrable.
The next error relied on for reversal is, that the Judge gave an erroneous charge to the- jury on the subject of damages. Among other things not excepted to, the court charged the jury, "that they were the exclusive judges of the amount of damages that should be allowed,- if any, and might allow any sum they might agree upon not exceeding the amount claimed."
This embraces all the instructions given to the jury on the subject of damages. A reference to the evidence as to the value of the property alleged to have been taken shows much conflict among the witnesses. It. was a case that called specially for definite instructions from the Judge as to the law applicable to the conflicting evidence. It was manifest error in such a case to withhold from the jury those rules which the law prescribes as to weighing evidence and applying it to the conflict among witnesses, which marked the testimony given to the jury. It was error to leave the jury to agree upon any amount not exceeding that claimed without regard to the evidenee in the case.
For this error the judgment is reversed.