Chipman

Chipman v. Emeric

Good Law
1855 Cal. LEXIS 92·5 Cal. 239
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1855California141 words

Lead Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J.

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.