Eadus v. Hunter

I cannot join in the opinion of Mr. Justice Fead.

Counsel for plaintiffs, at the trial, disclaimed that the action was for slander of title and stated that it was only to recover damages “for conversion of the leasehold interest under the lease.”

As I shall endeavor to point out in the course of this opinion plaintiffs, by-their own acts, are estopped from having substantial damages; the husband by direct acts, and the wife by acquiescence and waiver; and in any event the damages are not only excessive but, in large measure, based upon elements not within the scope of the action.

In Eadus v.…