those courts. in actions upon the case, covenant, trespass, e(c., wherein the damages were ucnertain; which the plaintiff was obliged to pay to the prothonotary or the officer of the court wherein he recovered. before he could have ex- ecution for the damages. This was originally a gratuity given to the prothonotaries nnd their clerks for drawing special writs and pleadings; but it was taken away by statute, since which. if any officer in these courts took any money in the name of damage-cleer, or a_uyl.hi in iicu thereof. be forfeited trehle the value Wharton. —])n.mn.ge fcasnnt or ant. Doing dinnnge. A term applied to a person‘: cattle or beasts found upon another‘: land, doing dam- aie by treading down the grass. grain. etc.
B . Comm. 7. 211; Tomlins. This phrase seems to hone been introduced in the reign of Edward III.. in place of the older expression "on can rage." (in. dummy mm.) Crahh, Eng. Low, Damaged goods. Goods. subject to du- Lles, which have ieceived some injury either in the Voyage home or while houded in warehouse.
DAMAGES. A pecuniary compensation
or indemnity, which may he recovered in the
courts by any person who has suffered loss.
deti-lnient, or in_'|nry, whether to his peison,
property, or rights. through the unlawful act
or omission or negligence of another. Scntt
V. Donald, U. S. 53, 17 Sup. Ct. 265,
41 1. Ed. Crane v. Peer. 4?. N. J. Eq.
553. 4 Atl. 7-‘, Cincinnati v. Hater. 49 Ohio
St. 60. 30 N. F3. 197; Wainscott v. Loan Ass‘n,
98 Cal. "*3. 33 Piic. 88; Carvill v. Jacks, 43
Ark. 449: Collins v. Railroad (‘o., 9 Heisk.
(Tenn.) 850; New York v. Lord. 17 Wend.
(N. Y.) 293; O'Connor v. Dils. 43 W. Vn.
54. 26 S. E. 354.
A sum of money assessed by a jury, on finding for the plaintiff or successful party in an action, as a compensation for the in- jury done him by the opposite party. 2 Bl. (‘oinin. 438; Co. Lltt. 25741; 2 Tidd. Pr. 869, 870.
Every person who sufl’ers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of another may recover from the pemon in fziuit a compensation therefor in money, which is called "damages." Civ. Code Cal. 5 3281; Oiv. Code Dan. 5 1940.
In tho ancient usage, the word "’ " was employed in two signifirations. According to Coke, its proper and general sense included the costs of s it, while its strict or relative sense was u\‘r-lusivc of costs. 10 (Joke, 116. 117; C0. Litt. 257:1; 9 East, 299. The latter meaning has alnne survived.
Classification. Damages are either general or special. General damages are such as the law itself implies or presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of, for the reason that they are its immediaie. direct, and prnxiniute result, or such as necessailly result from the injury, or such as did in fact result from the wrong. directly and proximately, and without reference to the special character. condition, or urcumstances of the plnintilf. Mood v. Telegraph Co.. 40 S. C‘. 521. 19 S. E. G7: Manufacturing Co. v. Gridley. 23 Conn 212: Irrigation Co. v. Canal Co.. ‘Z3 Utah. l99_ 63 Fae. SI2; Smith v. Railway Co.. 30 Minn. 169, 14 N. W. , Loftus v. I.’-ciinett 68 App. Div. 128. 74 N. 1 Supp. 210 Special damages are those which are the actuai, but not the necessary, result of the injury complained of, and which in fact follow it as a natural and proxi- iunic consequence in the particular case, that is,
314
DAMAGES.
by reason of special circumstances or madltlnna Hence general damages are such as mipilit no crue to any person similarly injured, while spe cial damages are such as did in fact accrue to the particular individual by reason of the particulnr circumstances of the case. "'21 Ah Sam. 71 Cal. 197. l‘2 Pac. 4 53-1; Manufacturing Co. v. G ‘.312; Lawrcncc v. Porter. 6.} Fe . . A. 27. 26 L. R. A. 167: {ohcrts v. Gr-ah.-i 6 Wall. 579, 15 L. Ed. 791: Fry v. McConi, Tenn. 678, 33 S. W. 568.
Direct and consequential. Direct darnnges are suLh as follow immediately upon the not done; while consequential] damages are th necessary and connected effect of the wrongful act, flowing from some of its conscrpieuan or resnits. though to some extent depending on other circumstances. C-iv. (‘ode Ga. 1.11?‘-, 5 3911; Pearson v. Spnrtanhurg County, 51 S. C. 4811. 29 S. E. 193; Eaton v. Railroad Co., 51 N. E. 504, 12 Am. Rep. 147.
Liquidnted and IIII"qniIla.¢od. The former term is applicable uheu the amount of the damages has been ascertained by the ]|||'iQT.l(’l’C in the action, or when a specific sum of mm»: has been expressly stipulated hV the parties in ii bond or other contract as the amount of dam- ages to be recovered by either party for s of the agreement by the other. Watts v. Shep piird. ‘.2 Ala. 445: Smith v. Smith, 4 WHIH (N. 1.) 470: Ker-hie v. Keehie, 85 Ala 5 South 149: llaliin v. Scott. 70 Tex. 442, A S. W. 777. Unliquidated damnses nre sudi IS are not yet reduced to a certainty in rnsp«:t of amount. nothing more being established than the plaintiffs right to recover: or suih as cannot be fixed by [1 more mathematical calculation from ascertained data in the cast‘. (‘ox v. Molmugblin. 76 Cal. 60, 18 Pac. 100. 9 Am. St Rep. 164
Nominal and an. ' 1. Nominal dam- ages are a trifling sum suardcd to a plaintfll in an action, where there is no suhsrmtlal loss or injury to be compensated, but stili the law recognizes a technical invasion of his l"iKl1l'B or a breach of the defendant's duty, or in (‘A565 where, although there has been a real lnjury. thc plaintiff's evidence entirely fails to show its amount. Mshcr v. Wilson 139 Go] 514 73 Pac. 418: Stanton v. Itnilrond Co.. 59 (‘nun 272. 22 At]. 300. 2] Am. St. Rep. 110' S rin- ger v. Fuel Co.. l96 Pa. 156. 46 MI. 370; cle- grziph Co. v. Lawson. 66 Kan. 660. 72 Pnc. 293; Railroad Co. v. V\'atson, 37 Kan. "' 15 PM. 877. Suhstantial damages are (‘OI dnr.-ible in amount, and intended as a real compensation for a real injury.
I" ‘ , and _y. Compensatoiy damn,-zes are such as will couipr-nsate the lnjured party for the injury sustain:-il. nud nothing more; such as will simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong: 0 in- jury. McKnight v. IJ[‘Ill'l_V'. 198 Pa. 9 -1 At]. 970; Reid v. Terwilliger. 116 N. Y. 5?.’-‘.
N. E. 1091 ; hlonongahcla l\'av. Co v. U. S. 1 . Sup. Ct. - 37 L. Ed. 441?. Wade v. Power Co ‘i1 S. C. .96. 29 S. E. 213. 64 -\m. St. Rep. ; Gatzow v. Bucniuz. 106 Wis. 1. 81 N. W. 1003. 49 L. R. A. 473. N) Am. St. Rep. 1 Exemplary . . D are damages on an increased scale, awarded to the plointlll over and nhme whiit will barely compensate him for his property loss, where the wrong done tn him was aggravated by circumstances of violence. oppression, inalir-c. fraud, or wautnr and wicked conduct on the part of the defcuilrinl. and are intended to solace the plaintiff for mental anguish, iuceration of his feelings, shame degradation, or other aggravations of the o in.il wrong, or else to punish the defendant or his evil behavior or to make an example of him. for which reason they are also cilled "punitive" or "punitnr_r" damages or "vindictive" damages, and (Vulgarly) "smart-money." I’.ei'd
- .1
an
