TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jones v. Stanly

Samuel F. Jones v. Edward R. Stanly.

Jones v. Stanly, 76 N.C. 355 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 5, 1877
Judges
Rodman
Citations
76 N.C. 355
Cited by 33
Headnotes
One who maliciously persuades another to break a contract with a third person is liable to such person l’or damages ; Th refore. in aii action for damages where the plaintiff had made a contract with a Rail Road Company of which the defendant was President and Superintendcm which contract the defendant maliciously and in order to injure the plaintiff, ■ refused to complete. Held, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. (Haskins v Royster, TO N. O- 601, cited and approved.)
Summary
Contract — Liability of One Maliciously Causing Breach of. Civil Action, tried at Fall Term, 1875, of Craven Supe, xior Court-, before Seymour, J. The suit was brought 'to recover damages of the defendant for breach of contract. The facts necessary to an understanding of the points decided are sufficiently stated in the opinion of this Court. The jury tendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $3,000 upon which judgment was entered. The Court thereafter upon motion of defendant arrested the judgment and plaintiff appealed to this Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rodman

Rodman, J.

It was decided in Haskins v. Royster, 70 N. C. 601 , that if a person maliciously entices laborers or croppers to break their contracts with their employer and desert his service, the employer may recover damages against such person. The same reasons coyer'every ease where one person maliciously persuades another to break any contract with a third person. It is not confined to contracts for service. In the present case the plaintiff made a contract with the Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad Company of which, the defendant was President and Superintendent, by which the Company agreed lo transport from points on their road to Morehead City a large number of cross-ties which plaintiff had contracted to deliver in Cuba. After the contract had been partly performed the defendant being still President and Superintendent-of the Company maliciously and for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff, as the jury have found, refused to complete the contract whereby plaintiff* was injured. After the jury had found a verdict for the plaintiff* and assessed his damages the Judge arrested the judgment and the plaintiff appealed. In this we thinlc the Judge erred and his judgment must be reversed.

It is the duty of this Court to give such judgment as it appears on the record that the' Court below should have given. The 'plaintiff moves here for judgment upon the verdict. There are no exceptions by defendant' to the Judge’s charge, and it. does not appear that he ashed for a new trial. The instructions of the Judge1 on the question of damages are not full, but it does not appear that he was requested to give any others. If he had thought the damages excessive he would have set the verdict aside and given a *357 new trial on that ground. We neither do nor can know anything of the evidence and if we did we could not set aside the verdict and give a new trial on that ground except perhaps where it appeared to be a very gross case of excess •Judgment below reversed and judgment in this Court for the plaintiff according to the verdict.

PER Cttrtam. Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 33 cases

View all citing references →
1886–1887: 11890–1891: 11892–1893: 11894–1895: 11896–1897: 11900–1901: 31902–1903: 11904–1905: 21906–1907: 11908–1909: 31910–1911: 11912–1913: 31920–1921: 11922–1923: 11924–1925: 11926–1927: 11928–1929: 21930–1931: 11936–1937: 11942–1943: 11944–1945: 11952–1953: 11954–1955: 11970–1971: 11984–1985: 118862026peak 1900 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lexington Homes, Inc. v. W. E. Tyson Builders, Inc.331 S.E.2d 318 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985)
  2. Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.151 U.S. 1 (1894)
  3. Sidney Blumenthal & Co. v. United States30 F.2d 247 (2d Cir. 1929)
  4. Childress v. Abeles84 S.E.2d 176 (N.C. 1954)
  5. Raymond v. Yarrington62 L.R.A. 962 (Tex. 1903)
  6. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Gardiner Dairy Co.69 A. 405 (Md. 1908)

Most recent

  1. Lexington Homes, Inc. v. W. E. Tyson Builders, Inc.331 S.E.2d 318 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985)
  2. Carolina Overall Corp. v. East Carolina Linen Supply, Inc.174 S.E.2d 659 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970)
  3. Childress v. Abeles84 S.E.2d 176 (N.C. 1954)
  4. Bryant v. Barber75 S.E.2d 410 (N.C. 1953)
  5. Bruton v. Smith36 S.E.2d 9 (N.C. 1945) · Concurrence
  6. Phillips v. Belding Heminway Co.50 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D.N.Y. 1943)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Haskins v. Royster, 70 N.C. 601 (1874) 56

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list