TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Coryell v. Colbaugh

Coryell against Colbaugh

Coryell v. Colbaugh, 1 N.J.L. 77 (1791)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1791
Citations
1 N.J.L. 77
Headnotes
A Judgment bo tween other parties shalL not prejudice a person not party or privy to the record. Damages in action of breach of promise of marriage should he exemplary: not to be measured by defendants poverty.
Summary
THIS was an action on a promise of marriage, which was fully proved, with strong circumstances of aggravation. that an action had been brought by the plaintiff’s father against the defendant for getting her with child, loss of service fkc. and upon its being left to arbitrators, they by consent of parties, had gone into the whole inquiry, both as to the promise of marriage and seduction, and had awarded the exemplary sum of £ 75-3-9 for which judgment was entered. He said it would be a double recovery, and a trick, to assess damages, independent of the former sum, and cited the case of Edmonson v. Machell. (a) The court refused this evidence; they said it was against every rule of evidence, that a verdict between other parties, “ res inter alios acta,” should prejudice a person, not party or privy to the record: that if this was so, the most which could be made of it would be a ground for a new trial in the other suit; but legally, the plaintiff could claim no benefit from the other suit. It was her father’s action, she is not to be affected by it here. It was further insisted on, as a ground for small damages that the defendant was poor, which seemed not to be contradicted.

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.

The Chief Justice

in his charge to the jury said that the injury complained of, was of the most atrocious and dishonourable nature, and called for exemplary damages. That such conduct went to destroy the peace and prospects, not only of the injured woman, but to render families and parents wretched by the ruin of their children. He told the jury that they were not to estimate the damages by any particular proof of suffering or actual loss; but to give damages for example’s sake, to prevent such offences in future; and also to allow liberal damages for the hr each of a sacred promise, and the great disadvantages which must follow to her through life: that in this case, they were to consider not only the past *78 injury, but every consequence in future. He repeated in very strong terms his detestation of such conduct, and told the jui;y they were bound to no certain damages, but might give such a sum, as would mark their disapprobation, and be an example to others. That the defendant’s poverty, ought not to prevent exemplary damages; that poverty, was no justification nor extenuation of a crime like this; and it was their duty to measure the injury he had done, and not the purse of the defendant. That it would be better to treat him in this manner, than by giving small damages, to countenance an idea, that a man because poor, should be let loose on society. He concluded by observing, that it was a 3erious matter — involved in it, the protection of innocence; the prevention of disgrace to families, and the punishment of offences too common, and too often lightly treated.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1992: 11994: 22002: 12003: 12006: 12008: 12010: 22019: 22022: 119922026peak 1994 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker554 U.S. 471 (2008)
  2. Capital Solutions, LLC v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.695 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (D. Kan. 2010)
  3. Zoppo v. Homestead Insurance1994 Ohio 461
  4. Dutra Group v. Batterton588 U.S. 358 (2019)
  5. Kennedy v. Carnival Corp.385 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
  6. Groshek v. TREWIN2010 WI 51, 784 N.W.2d 163

Most recent

  1. All Star Awards & Ad Specialties, Inc. v. HALO Branded Solutions, Inc.No. SC99007 (Mo. Apr. 5, 2022)
  2. Dutra Group v. Batterton588 U.S. 358 (2019)
  3. Kennedy v. Carnival Corp.385 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
  4. Groshek v. TREWIN2010 WI 51, 784 N.W.2d 163
  5. Capital Solutions, LLC v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc.695 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (D. Kan. 2010)
  6. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker554 U.S. 471 (2008)

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