Jacobs v. Hoover

• Decision Date: 01 January 1864
• Parties: ASA H. JACOBS AND WIFE vs. JOHN HOOVER et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

9 Minn. 189

ASA H. JACOBS AND WIFE vs. JOHN HOOVER et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Appeal from judgment of district court, Rice County.

Points and authorities for appellants: —

1. The court was wrong in overruling the offer of the defendants, made on the trial, to prove, in mitigation of damages, that the premises described in the complaint were obtained from the defendant Neil, by the plaintiff Jacobs, by fraud and false representations. The action being one in which the jury are allowed an almost unlimited discretion in the finding of vindictive damages, we submit that no evidence could tend more directly, palpably or properly to prevent or control the exercise of that discretion than to show the fraudulent manner in which the plaintiff obtained possession of the premises.

2. The court appears to have misconceived the action by refusing to instruct the jury according to the first, fifth and sixth requests of the defendants. The action is simply the ordinary one of trespass for an assault and battery, and yet the court, by refusing the first request, tells the jury in effect that it is not necessary for the plaintiff, in order to recover, to prove an assault and battery, nor even an assault. By refusing the fifth request, he tells them, what a glance at the complaint shows to be erroneous, that there is some other cause of action set forth therein than assault and battery; and, by refusing the sixth request, he tells them they may find damages for the plaintiffs, though they fail to find an assault and battery, or even an assault. The error of the judge, in refusing to give these requested instructions, consists in ignoring the gist of the action, which is assault and battery. Failing to sustain the gist, the entire action falls to the ground, and no damages whatever can be recovered by the plaintiffs. Gould Pl. 51-2, 365 Chitty Pl. 167; Bouvier Dict. 561, as to gist of the action; 2 Bla. 119.

Points and authorities for respondents: —

1. The gist of the action is the indignity, insult, and injury, arising from shutting a woman thinly clad, in feeble health, and far from neighbors, from her house, forcibly preventing her return and compelling her to remain exposed to the night air, and frightening her, aggravated by an assault, but constituting, without any assault, such an injury as will entitle the party wronged, to her damages. The defendants were notified by the complaint to meet, disprove, or justify, the whole affair, and have attempted to do so without any objection to any evidence offered by the plaintiffs. The court, therefore, rightly charged that no actual legal assault was necessary, but that if from a review of the whole transaction, the jury were satisfied that a willful wrong had been done to Mrs. Jacobs in any of the respects complained of, whereby she suffered any personal injury, which is not justified by the defendants, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Comp. Stat. 542, § 79; id. 543, § 90; id. 544, § 96; 2 Bla. [120].

2. If the court hold otherwise, it must be on the ground that the occurrences admitted to have been proved, really constituted in the eyes of the law an assault, so that the charge of the judge was still substantially correct and could not have misled the jury. It was only calling an assault by another name. If this view were taken, there would be no propriety in sending the case back for a new trial, that the judge might charge the jury that an assault was necessary, but that the wrongs admitted to have been proved constituted an assault. It would be subjecting the parties to further litigation, without altering the real bearing of the law on the facts proved. 5 Minn. [171], [339].

3. No fraud or false representations, admitting that such could have been proved against the plaintiff Asa H. Jacobs, could justify the defendants in taking the law into their own hands, and inflicting an outrage on a defenseless woman. Nor would any such fraudulent misrepresentations have any bearing on the question of damages, unless they were of so recent occurrence as to have been the immediate provocation to the outrage. 10 Conn. 455; 1 Mass. 11; 11 Pick. 379; 13 Wend. 658; 19 Johns. 319; 4 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 118, note b; 2 Duer, 310; 15 Barb. 590 (right of possession immaterial).

Berry & Perkins, for appellants.

Batchelder & Buckham, for respondents.

EMMETT, C. J.

This is an action brought by husband and wife to recover damages for alleged injuries to the person of the latter. The complaint charges, that the defendants on, etc., assaulted and beat, wounded and terrified, the plaintiff Lavina Jacobs, forcibly and unlawfully turned her out of her house, fastened her out, and hindered and prevented her thereafter from re-entering or returning thereto; whereby she suffered great injury, pain, etc., in body and mind, and was damaged in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars. The defendants answer separately, denying each and every allegation of the complaint; and the defendant Neil alleges, in addition, that the house in question belonged, at the time, to him; that the plaintiffs had obtained possession thereof by corrupt representations and fraud; and that on the day of the alleged assault and battery he had re-entered and taken possession of said house peaceably, and without force or violence, as he lawfully might, etc. The reply denies the new matter set up in this answer of Neil.

From the agreed statement of the facts established on the trial, we learn that the defendant Neil had formerly occupied the house with his family; but about six weeks prior to the occurrence complained of, the plaintiffs, under a contract of purchase, had, with the knowledge and consent of said Neil, gone into possession of said house, and continued thereafter to occupy the same, with their family; that on the day named said Neil was working with the other defendants, his hired men, about forty rods distant from the plaintiff's said residence, Mr. Jacobs and other members of his family being absent on other parts of the farm, his wife alone being at the house; that Neil was fully aware of this situation of affairs, and while Mr. Jacobs was so absent, his (Neil's) wife went to the plaintiff's house, and after some conversation with Mrs. Jacobs, passed out of the house with her into the garden to examine some plants, Mrs. Jacobs being at the time...