Baldridge v. Allen
| Decision Date | 30 June 1842 |
| Citation | 2 Ired. 206,24 N.C. 206 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JANE BALDRIDGE v. WILLIAM ALLEN. |
Where one unintentionally does an act with force, which produces an immediate injury, the person injured may bring an action of trespass, or an action on the case, and in the latter he declares upon the negligence or carelessness of the defendant.
But when the forcible act is done wilfully, negligence is of course negatived, and the only remedy is trespass for the immediate injury.
In such an action of trespass, damages for ulterior injuries, beyond the immediate injury, are to be recovered under a per quod, on being specially stated in the declaration.
The case of Allen v Greenlee, 2 Dev. 370, cited and approved.
Appeal from the judgment of his Honor Judge BAILEY, at the Spring Term, 1842, of Rutherford Superior Court of Law. This was an action on the case, in which the plaintiff declared for the injury which she sustained, in consequence of the defendant's taking from her actual possession three negroes on or about the middle of May. It was in evidence that the negroes were in the actual possession of the plaintiff, and that about the middle of May, 1839, the defendant took them from her possession with force, by which she lost the crop which she had then planted. The counsel for the plaintiff waived the trespass, and declared for the consequential injury arising from the loss of the crop, which had been planted, and which was lost for the want of some one to work it. The negroes were kept by the defendant for about two weeks. The Court asked the plaintiff's counsel, if he declared in Trover. He said he did not, but declared in case for the cousequential injury, arising from the loss of the crop. By consent of the counsel a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court. The court, being of opinion that Trespass or Trover was the remedy, and that case would not lie for the consequential injury, set aside the verdict, and directed a nonsuit to be entered. From this judgment the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.
J. G. Bynum for the defendant , to show that, where the injury was immediate and wilful, trespass was the proper action, cited the following authorities: Pitts v Gaince, 1 Salk. 10. Leame v Bray, 3 East. 602. Ogle v Barnes, 8 T. R. 188. Davy v Edwards, 5 T. R. 648. Savignac v Roome, 6 T. R. 125. Haward v Banckes, 2 Bur. 1113.
Where one unintentionally does an act with force, which produces an immediate injury, the person injured may bring an action of trespass, or he may bring an action on the case. If he brings case, he declares upon the negligence or carelessness of the defendant in managing the thing, which has produced the injury; as that he so negligently and carelessly drove his coach, used his gun, rode his horse, steered his ship &c., that the plaintiff or his property was struck and hit, and was injured in consequence of such carelessness. In such an action, upon the case, the plaintiff may recover, not only for the immediate injury, but for all other injuries flowing from and out of it. But when the forcible act is done wilfully, negligence is of course negatived, and then trespass is the only remedy for the immediate injury. Moreton v Hardern. 10 Eng. C. L. R. 316. Williams v Holland, 25 Eng. C. L. R. 50. Lloyd v Needum, 11 Price 608. 10 Wendall 324. If trespass be brought, damages for all ulterior injuries, beyond the immediate injury, can be recovered only under a per quod, on being specially stated in the declaration. Chitty's Plead. 442. Lindon v Hooper, Peake's Rep. 63. Cowper 418. Judge BLACKSTONE says that every action of trespass with a per quod includes an action on the case. Scott v Shepperd, 2 Black. Rep. 897. The plaintiff contends that, inasmuch as the damages now sought to be recovered (for the loss of the crop) would not have been recovered, if she had brought trespass,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moser v. Fulk
...together, is the warrant void? An action for malicious prosecution 'presupposes valid process.' Allen v. Greenlee, 13 N.C. 370; Baldridge v. Allen, 24 N.C. 206; Zachary v. Holden, 47 N.C. 453; Parrish v. Hewitt, 220 N.C. 708, 18 S.E.2d 141; Caudle v. Benbow, 228 N.C. 282, 45 S.E.2d If the w......