Armstrong v. Pierson
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Des Moines District Court. Slander. The speaking of the words is denied; and, among other things, it is set up in the answer that plaintiff’s character was not injured by the alleged speaking. Evidence was introduced tending to show that plaintiff was a man of bad general character.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Des Moines District Court. Slander. The speaking of the words is denied; and, among other things, it is set up in the answer that plaintiff’s character was not injured by the alleged speaking. Evidence was introduced tending to show that plaintiff was a man of bad general character. The court instructed the jury, “ that the character of the plaintiff can never be considered, until the jury come to the question of giving vindictive or exemplary damages, which are always given as a punishment on the defendant.” Judgment for1 plaintiff, and defendant appeals, assigning the giving…
1Opinion of the Court
"Wright, C. J.-
-The objection made is not to the concluding part of the instruction; or the words, “ which are always given as a punishment on the defendant.” The argument is directed, alone, to the proposition that plaintiff’s character was not to be taken into the account by the jury, until they come to consider whether he was entitled to vindictive or exemplary damages. In other words, it is said that the jury were told that plaintiff might be entitled to nominal and compensatory damages; and that, in giving compensation, good or bad character was to have no weight. As a general…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wolcott v. HallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
3Cited by5 opinions
- MacGregor v. MacGregorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Newman v. SteinMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Healey v. Citizens Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Orth v. FeatherlyMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Solar v. ResnickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1921