Case Name: P. V. ROGERS v. JAS. E. MICKLEY
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1876-01
Citations: 1 Shan. Cas. 587
Docket Number: 
Parties: P. V. ROGERS v. JAS. E. MICKLEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Cases with Notes and Annotations
Volume: 1
Pages: 587–587

Head Matter:
P. V. ROGERS v. JAS. E. MICKLEY.
Nashville,
January Term, 1876.
1. TORT. Owner of the property must sue for damages.
The action for a tort must in general be brought in the name of the person whose leg'al right has been affected, and who was legally interested in the property when the tort was committed.
2. SAME. Same. Owner must separate his from the lot of property attached.
Where a lot of property attached is part that of the debtor and part that of his vendor, from whom he purchased the part attached, to entitle such vendor to recover for such of the property as was not embraced in the sale, he must by proof separate it and ascertain its value.

Opinion:
Turney, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Tbe declaration is for wrongfully suing out an attachment against tbe estate of tbe plaintiff, whereby tbe plaintiff's property was wrongfully levied upon, seized and sold, etc.
Tbe proof is, that before the levy, the plaintiff bad sold a part of tbe property to Hobbs, but bow much or what part, does not appear; that after the levy tbe contract of sale was rescinded.
Tbe law is, tbe action for a tort must, in general, be brought in tbe name of tbe person whose legal, right has-been affected, and who was legally interested in tbe property at tbe time tbe injury thereto was committed, for be is impliedly tbe party injured by tbe tort, and whoever has-sustained tbe loss is tbe proper person to- call for compensation for tbe wrong. 1 Chitty's Pleading (7 American,, ed.), 68.
To entitle himself to a recovery for such of tbe property as was not embraced in tbe sale to Hobbs, tbe plaintiff should, by proof, have separated it and ascertaind its, value.
Reverse tbe judgment.