Murphy v. City of Fond du Lac
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Bond du Lac County. Trespass qua/re clausum. The questions here arose upon the instructions of the court, and its rulings as to evidence, which _ will sufficiently appear from the opinion. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff; and the defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtPaiNE, J.
The instruction that although placing the dirt on the plaintiff’s lot may have improved its value, she would be entitled “ to recover as damages what it would cost to remove the same,” was erroneous. The fact that a trespass may have benefited the property invaded cannot constitute a complete defense. The party is always entitled to nominal damages, for the vindication and protection of his right. But beyond this, except in cases where exemplary damages may be given, he is confined to his actual damages. And this "being so, the incorrectness of this instruction is apparent. It assumes that…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Jacobs v. MajorWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. CreekmoreMississippi Supreme Court · 1945
- Grygiel v. Monches Fish & Game Club, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
- Drummond v. City of Eau ClaireWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- Gross v. Capital Electric Line Builders, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.