Court Opinion

ID: 6544150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:18:12.393437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:55.202606
License: Public Domain

Bxjnn, C. J., (concurring). When this cause was decided by us in the first instance, I dissented from the opinion of the majority of the court, because the trial court had excluded certain evidence which went to make up a cause of fraud and overreaching on the part of the plaintiff, whereby he was enabled the moré readily to prove his claim of being a partner with Jenkins and wife, and therefore to sustain his contention for damages on account of the levy and sale of the goods. On this (the defendant’s) motion for a rehearing, the instructions on the measure and manner of assessing damages being more particularly called to our attention, I find that there was no evidence to sustain actual damages for loss of business, etc., and, as against the officer making the levy and sale out of the defendants, no evidence upon which exemplary damages should have been assessed, and only inferentially against the others. This instruction, or, rather, these instructions, as to damages, were erroneous. The remittitur entered by the court tended to cure the defect, and, if this was all the error in the case, I might concur in the idea that the error so corrected was not reversible, seeing that the jury apparently left out of consideration the damages for loss of business; but the error of the court as to the fraud of the plaintiff, and the exclusion of testimony relating thereto, constrain me to sustain the motion for a new trial on both grounds, as only in that way can justice be done, as I view it, and, indeed, taking all the circumstances under consideration, I cannot certainly say that errors in the instructions as to damages were not reversible errors. Had the court not erred as to the question of fraud, there would have been no occasion for these instructions as to damages, in my opinion.