Penrod v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ON the return of a writ of error to the Common Pleas Somerset county, it appeared that James Mitchell., the plaintiff below, brought an action in the nature of a writ of conspiracy, against David Penrod and Alexander Morrison, t*le defendants, in which he declared, in substance, that Morrison, having on the 18th of April, 1816, contracted with Stoystoxon and Greensburg Turnpike' Road Company, to ma^e a certmn part of the road, at fifteen dollars fifty cents per…
Read the full summary
In Error. ON the return of a writ of error to the Common Pleas Somerset county, it appeared that James Mitchell., the plaintiff below, brought an action in the nature of a writ of conspiracy, against David Penrod and Alexander Morrison, t*le defendants, in which he declared, in substance, that Morrison, having on the 18th of April, 1816, contracted with Stoystoxon and Greensburg Turnpike' Road Company, to ma^e a certmn part of the road, at fifteen dollars fifty cents per perch, entered into an agreement with Mitchell for the execution of a part of his contract, at the rate of thirteen dollars…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson J.. —
There is error in the charge. The true measure of the damages, was the value of the property withdrawn from the reach of Mitchell by Morrison's assignment to Penrod; and not the amount of Mitchell's judgment against Morrison. The action was brought for compensation for an injury ; not to punish the defendant for a fraud. Where there is no measure of damages for an injury attended with *525moral turpitude in the author of it, a jury may look beyond mere compensation, and assess damages by way of punishment : but where property has been acquired…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Mott v. DanforthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837