Chipman v. Emeric
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, County of Contra Costa. The opinion of the Court contains the facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, County of Contra Costa. The opinion of the Court contains the facts. E. W. F. Sloan and A. M. Crane, for Appellant, contended that the action of the Court below was erroneous, and cited 3 Bac., Ab., 81. G, Rees v. Emeric, 6 S. and R., 288. Newcomb v. Butterfield, 8 Johns., 342. Livingston v. Platner, 1 Cow., 175. Benton v. Dale, 1 Ib. ,160. King v. Havens, 25 Wend., 419. Germain v. Booth, 1 Denio, 639. 2 Wend., 247.
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, J.
Murray, C. J , and Bryan, J., concurred.
*240This 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…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Newcomb v. ButterfieldNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Livingston v. PlatnerNew York Supreme Court · 1823
3Cited by9 opinions
- Springer v. JenkinsOregon Supreme Court · 1906
- Alden v. MayfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
- Bettys v. Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- County of Santa Barbara v. MoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Neff v. PennoyerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1875
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.