TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Seabury v. Ross

Charles Seabury v. Amos M. Ross

Seabury v. Ross, 69 Ill. 533 (1873)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 15, 1873
Judges
Soholfield
Citations
69 Ill. 533
Syllabus
Replevin—damages against plaintiff, beyond nominal damages, must abe proved. Where the plaintiff fails in an action of replevin, in the absence of proof of actual damages, the defendant is entitled to nominal damages only.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Sabin D. Poterbaugh, Judge, presiding. This was an action of replevin, brought by Charles Seaburv, against Amos M. Ross and D. D. Ross, before a justice of the peace, for a mare, and taken by appeal to the circuit court. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict for the defendants, and finding that Amos M. Ross was the owner of the property, and assessing the damages at $117. The defendants remitted $67, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants for $50 damages. There was no proof of any damages. To reverse this judgment the plaintiff appealed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Soholfield

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Soholfield delivered the opinion of the Court:

This judgment must be reversed, for the reason that there is no evidence in the record authorizing the damages assessed by the jury. The effect of the mere finding against appellant is, to authorize nominal damages only. If damages were sustained beyond that amount, it was incumbent on the appellees to prove them. The jury, in the absence of evidence, had no right to assume that appellees had sustained other than nominal damages.

We perceive no other error in the record.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jarvis v. DePeza146 N.E. 662 (Mass. 1925)

Most recent

  1. Jarvis v. DePeza146 N.E. 662 (Mass. 1925)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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