Dillon v. Rogers
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Ellis. Tiled below before the Hon. C. T. Garland. The trespass consisted in the cutting of timber from land of the plaintiff by employed servants of the defendant. It is in proof on both sides that when the defendant sent his servants to cut the timber, he drew a map on the ground of his own land, adjoining that of the plaintiff, by way of instructing them where to cut the timber.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ellis. Tiled below before the Hon. C. T. Garland. The trespass consisted in the cutting of timber from land of the plaintiff by employed servants of the defendant. It is in proof on both sides that when the defendant sent his servants to cut the timber, he drew a map on the ground of his own land, adjoining that of the plaintiff, by way of instructing them where to cut the timber. Defendant, however, did not go with them to show his land, which was some two miles distant from his residence; and the hands got on the plaintiff’s tract, and cut the timber from it. The opinion and…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
A new trial should have been granted in this case. The verdict of the jury was unintelligible. Our English word impunity, which applies to something which may be done without penalty or punishment, comes from the Latin word mvpunis, which is a derivative from the word jpc&na, with the prefix in, and means without punishment or penalty. We have no such word in our language as “ impunitive; ” it cannot, then, be a proper finding for the jury to say, “ We, the “jury, find for the plaintiff one hundred dollars impunitive “ damages.”
This was such an error as might have been corrected, and should…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lindsay v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1876
- Taylor v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1879