Dorsey v. Manlove

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1860Published

Before: Cope

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. In an action for trespass to personal property where no circumstances of aggravation, malice, or oppression are shown, the measure of damages is limited to the value of the property plus interest, excluding consequential or collateral damages.

Issues

Whether consequential damages are recoverable in an action for trespass to personal property absent evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider collateral injuries and expenses in assessing damages for the seizure of property.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Our understanding of the law is, that the term compensation, when applied to cases of this character, has a fixed and definite legal signification, and refers solely to the injury done to the property taken, and not to any collateral or consequential damages resulting to the owner, by reason of the trespass.”

“Where no question of fraud, malice, or oppression, intervenes, the law limits the relief to compensation, as that term is legally understood; and in such cases the measure of relief is purely a matter of law.”

“It is an ordinary case of trespass, unaccompanied by any evil intent or improper motive, and the rule of compensation is the criterion of damages. This rule as we have already stated, limits the recovery to the value of the property with interest.”

Synopsis

In actions for taking and detaining personal property, no circumstances of aggrar vation being shown, the measure of damages is the value of the property, with interest.

If circumstances of aggravation be shown in order to increase the damages, then defendant may show all circumstances connected with his acts, and explanatory of his motives and intentions.

In such actions, the rule of damages depends on the presence or absence of circumstances of aggravation in the trespass, as fraud, malice, or oppression.

In the absence of such circumstances, the rule is, compensation merely, and this refers solely to the injury done to the property, and not to collateral or consequential damages resulting to the owner. And the measure of relief is matter of law.

But where the trespass is committed from wanton or malicious motives, or a reckless disregard of the rights of others, or under circumstances of great hardship and oppression, the rule of mere compensation is not enforced, and the measure and amount of damages are matters for the jury alone, and they may award punitive or exemplary damages.

The rule of compensation merely, as distinguished from the rule of exemplary damages, applies, even though the writ, under which the officer committed the trespass, were void—there being no circumstances of aggravation.

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Field, C. J. concurring.

This is an action for taking and detaining certain personal property belonging to the plaintiffs. It appears that the plaintiffs were engaged in the business of buying and selling stock, and at the time of the trespass complained of, were driving a large number of cattle from one of the southern counties in this State to Carson Yalley. On the way, it became necessary for them to stop a few days at a place called the Western House, in Sacramento County, at which place, the defendant, claiming to be Sheriff and Tax Collector of the county, and to act under and by virtue of an assessment for State and county taxes, seized upon and took from their possession ten head of horses, seven of which he returned on the following day; but the other three he retained and subsequently sold to satisfy the assessment. The plaintiffs allege in their complaint, and were permitted to show at the trial, that they sustained, in addition to the loss of the property taken, certain injuries resulting consequentially, from the acts of the defendant. They were allowed to prove, among other things, that they were driving a lot of wild Spanish cattle, which could only be driven by persons accustomed to the business, and mounted on horses trained for the purpose; that such horses were scarce, and that they had with much difficulty procured the number required for their use; that the horses taken by the defendant were of this number; that others could not be obtained, and that they were unable to pursue their journey without them; that from this cause they were subjected to a detention of several days, during which period their cattle suffered greatly on account of the scarcity of grass and water, and the hard and rough condition of the ground in the vicinity of the Western House; that some of the cattle strayed off and were lost; that others were rendered unfit for market, and the remainder much reduced in flesh. The witnesses testified to the amount of the damages. The plaintiffs were also allowed to prove the value of the services of their hired hands and the expenses of such bands, during the period of the detention.

[555]The defendant justifies as Sheriff and Tax Collector under the assessment before referred to; but it is contended, that this assessment was irregular and void, and that for other causes the acts of the defendant were unauthorized and illegal. The Court below was of this opinion, and accordingly excluded from the jury the assessment itself, and all evidence in relation to it. This placed the defendant before the jury'in the position of a naked trespasser, and the result was a verdict for the plaintiffs for two thousand dollars in damages. The value of the property taken was three hundred and fifty dollars.

Dorsey v. Manlove

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief