Beeman St. Clair Co. v. Caradine

• Decision Date: 25 March 1896
• Citation: 34 S.W. 980
• Parties: BEEMAN ST. CLAIR CO. v. CARADINE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

34 S.W. 980

BEEMAN ST. CLAIR CO. v. CARADINE.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 25, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Brown county; J. O. Woodward, Judge.

Action by Robert Caradine against the Beeman St. Clair Company for damages for libel. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Lindsey & Goodson, for appellant.

KEY, J.

Appellant, a corporation doing business in Comanche, Tex., bought from Moore, Hill & Co. an account against appellee, and, upon his refusal to pay the same, placed it in the hands of the Merchants' Mercantile Agency of Chicago, Ill.; and on account of certain letters written by appellant and said agency concerning said claim, and said agency placing appellee's name on a certain list which it distributed among its patrons, appellee sued appellant for libel, claiming $20,000 actual and $10,000 exemplary damages. The jury returned a verdict for appellee for $500 actual damages.

In charging the jury, the court failed to explain the difference between actual and exemplary damages; and after giving certain definitions and explanations, and telling the jury, if they found certain facts to be proven, to find for the plaintiff, the charge reads: "And assess the damages at such amount as you may believe from the evidence he is entitled." No other charge as to the measure of damages was asked or given; and appellant assigns error upon the clause of the charge just quoted. We sustain this assignment, and reverse the judgment. In every damage suit the court ought to furnish the jury a rule by which to measure and fix the damages; and while, possibly, cases might occur in which it would not be reversible error to fail to do so, yet we are satisfied that the present is not such a case. The plaintiff sought to recover both actual and exemplary damages. Pecuniary compensation for the injury caused by the libel is the measure of actual damages, while exemplary damages are dependent upon the existence of other facts, and are measured by a different rule. It is true, the amount recovered is stated in the verdict to be actual damages; but as the court failed to explain the difference between actual and exemplary damages, and further failed to give the jury any rule by which to measure either, how can we know that, if properly classified, part of the amount allowed as actual would not be exemplary damages? and that, if the jury had been properly instructed, they would not have fixed the actual damages at a less sum,...