Clement v. Brown
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, Seymour W. Brown, from an order of the District Court of Winona County, Chas. M. Start, J., made October 31, 1893, denying conditionally his motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, Seymour W. Brown, from an order of the District Court of Winona County, Chas. M. Start, J., made October 31, 1893, denying conditionally his motion for a new trial. The plaintiff, Lilla J. Clement, brought this action to recover damages for breach of defendant’s promise made at Minneapolis to marry her in the spring of 1893. Defendant denied that he made the promise and also pleaded in mitigation that plaintiff was formerly the Avife of George E. Clement, a locomotive engineer. That plaintiff and defendant became intimate. The husband discovered the intimacy. To avoid…
1Opinion of the Court
GilfilijAN, C, J.
We agree with the conclusion which the trial court seems to have reached on the motion for a new trial, — that this is not a case for the allowance of exemplary or punitive damages. As the words indicate, such damages may, in a proper case, be assessed against a defendant, in addition to the actual damages sustained by plaintiff, as a punishment for the oppressive, malicious, and wanton character of the wrong done to plaintiff. Hotvever reprehensible in morals the conduct of the defendant may have been, — however worthy of punishment, — it would be a travesty of *316justice to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dennis v. JacksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
3Cited by4 opinions
- Jensen v. PetersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Dennis v. JacksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Sneve v. LunderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Hively v. GolnickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913