Conant v. Griffin
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BREESE |
| Citation | 48 Ill. 410,1868 WL 5132 |
| Parties | ELIHU C. CONANT et al.v.ALBERT GRIFFIN, Adm'r, etc., of WILLIAM BARBER, dec'd. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1868 |
48 Ill. 410
1868 WL 5132 (Ill.)
ELIHU C. CONANT et al.
v.
ALBERT GRIFFIN, Adm'r, etc., of WILLIAM BARBER, dec'd.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
September Term, 1868.
[48 Ill. 411]
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. W. W. HEATON, Judge, presiding.
[48 Ill. 412]
The facts in this case are fully stated in the opinion.Messrs. EDSALL & CRABTREE, for the appellants.
Messrs. BARGE & HEATON, for the appellee.
Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action of trespass, in the Lee Circuit Court, brought by Albert Griffin, administrator on the estate of William Barber, deceased, against Elihu C. Conant and William A. Conant, for an assault upon deceased with a pistol, resulting in his death. The action was brought under the act of 1853, on the allegation that deceased left a widow and infant son, his next of kin, to whom the damages, if any were recovered, could be distributed.
The plea was the general issue, with a notice of justification.
A jury found for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at five thousand dollars. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and a judgment rendered on the verdict.
To reverse this judgment, the defendants have appealed to this court.
Several points are made by the appellants as grounds of reversal, the first of which is, that the court received evidence to show the wealth of the defendants, on the claim of the plaintiff and by concession of the court, that he had a right to recover punitive or exemplary damages. On this question, this court is fully committed by the decision in the cases of The City of Chicago v. Major, 18 Ill. 349, and Rock Island Railroad Co. v. Morris, 26 ib. 400, and Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. v. Shannon, 43 ib. 338.
In the first named case, the object and purposes of this statute were fully considered, and it was there held that the
[48 Ill. 413]
damages to be recovered, in an action under it, could only be for the pecuniary loss, not for the bereavement.In the next case it was said, the statute makes the pecuniary loss of the widow and next of kin the sole measure of damages. The satisfaction of that loss, is, therefore, the sole purpose for which an action can be instituted, there being nothing to be allowed for the bereavement, nothing for solatium; the damages must be limited to an indemnity for the pecuniary loss.
In the last case, it was said, such next of kin as have suffered pecuniary injury from death, may recover pecuniary compensation under the statute, which requires the jury to give such damages as they may deem a fair and just compensation.
It is apparent, from these rulings, that the condition of th?? defendants, as to wealth, could not be taken into consideration by the jury in arriving at the measure of compensation for the pecuniary loss, for, was their wealth small or great, it did not, in any manner, increase or diminish the pecuniary loss sustained by the parties complaining. This action is the creature of the statute, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stang v. Hertz Corp., No. 312
...compensation for the pecuniary loss to the parties entitled to recovery. Chicago & R.I.R. Co. v. Norris, 26 Ill. 400; Conant v. Griffin, 48 Ill. 410, 412; Pennsylvania Railroad Co v. Butler, 57 Pa.St. 335, 338; Telfer v. Northern R. Co., 30 N.J.L. 188, 199; Brady v. Chicago, 4 Biss. 448, 45......
-
Bell v. City of Milwaukee, Nos. 82-2102
...14 N.Y. 310 (1856); Dickins v. New York C. R.R., 23 N.Y. 158 (1861); Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Ogier, 35 Pa. 60 (1860); Conant v. Griffin, 48 Ill. 410 (1868); City of Chicago v. Scholten, 75 Ill. 468 (1874); Besenecker v. Sale, 8 Mo.App. 211 (Mo.Ct.App.1880); Steel v. Kurtz, 28 Ohio St. 191 ......
-
Whitley v. Spokane & Inland Railway Co.
...ed., 955; Weidner v. Rankin, 26 Ohio St. 522; Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. Wightman, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 431, 26 Am. Rep. 384; Conant v. Griffin, 48 Ill. 410.) No statute of Washington forbids a foreign administrator to sue in its courts. A foreign representative may sue to collect a claim where th......
-
Johnson v. St. Joseph Terminal Ry. Co.
...and not the plaintiff, was the lawful widow of Thomas D. Jones, and that the facts of this case distinguish it from Conant v. Griffith, 48 Ill. 410, where there was an attempt to show that another one than the plaintiff there was the widow of deceased, and it was held that which one was the......
-
Stang v. Hertz Corp., No. 312
...compensation for the pecuniary loss to the parties entitled to recovery. Chicago & R.I.R. Co. v. Norris, 26 Ill. 400; Conant v. Griffin, 48 Ill. 410, 412; Pennsylvania Railroad Co v. Butler, 57 Pa.St. 335, 338; Telfer v. Northern R. Co., 30 N.J.L. 188, 199; Brady v. Chicago, 4 Biss. 448, 45......
-
Whitley v. Spokane & Inland Railway Co.
...ed., 955; Weidner v. Rankin, 26 Ohio St. 522; Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. Wightman, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 431, 26 Am. Rep. 384; Conant v. Griffin, 48 Ill. 410.) No statute of Washington forbids a foreign administrator to sue in its courts. A foreign representative may sue to collect a claim where th......
-
Bell v. City of Milwaukee, Nos. 82-2102
...14 N.Y. 310 (1856); Dickins v. New York C. R.R., 23 N.Y. 158 (1861); Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Ogier, 35 Pa. 60 (1860); Conant v. Griffin, 48 Ill. 410 (1868); City of Chicago v. Scholten, 75 Ill. 468 (1874); Besenecker v. Sale, 8 Mo.App. 211 (Mo.Ct.App.1880); Steel v. Kurtz, 28 Ohio St. 191 ......
-
Johnson v. St. Joseph Terminal Ry. Co.
...and not the plaintiff, was the lawful widow of Thomas D. Jones, and that the facts of this case distinguish it from Conant v. Griffith, 48 Ill. 410, where there was an attempt to show that another one than the plaintiff there was the widow of deceased, and it was held that which one was the......