Chipman v. Emeric
WILLIAM W. CHIPMAN and GIDEON AUGHINBAUGH v. JOSEPH EMERIC
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Murray, C. J , and Bryan, J., concurred.
*240 This was an action of waste at common law. The jury found for the plaintiff and the Court trebled the damages under the statute.
The rule is laid down in Bacon’s Abridgment that “when treble damages are given by a statute, the demand for such damages must be expressly inserted in the declaration, which must either recite the statute or conclude to the damage of the plaintiff against the form of a statute.” See also, Rees v. Emeric, 6 S. and R., 288. Newcomb v. Butterfield, 8 Johns., 342 . Livingston v. Platner, 1 Cow., 175 . Benton v. Dalea, Ib., 160.
Upon the weight of these authorities the judgment is reversed, and judgment ordered to be here entered in favor of the plaintiffs for the single damages found by the verdict.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.