Glass v. Brunt

Perhaps the indisputable facts were sufficient to prove some substantial damages, which would support an additional assessment of punitive damages under the salutary rule laid down by Mr. Chief Justice Kingman. My difficulty is with the specific allowances for actual damages and for loss of profits. If the trial court had- chosen to believe plaintiff’s testimony as to the replacement value of the stolen property, which was $125, this court could not meddle with it. (Brenneisen v. Phillips, 142 Kan. 98, 45 P. 2d 867.) But the trial court rejected that testimony altogether and found its value…