Jensen v. Hallam

• Decision Date: 05 May 1897
• Citation: 70 N.W. 1121,51 Neb. 492
• Parties: JENSEN ET AL. v. HALLAM.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

51 Neb. 492

70 N.W. 1121

JENSEN ET AL.

v.HALLAM.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

May 5, 1897.

Syllabus by the Court.

The evidence in this case considered, and held to show that the damages are excessive.

Error to district court, Douglas county; Ogden, Judge.

Action by A. Hallam against Jensen, Yuhl, & Hensen. Judgment for plaintiff for $583.24, and defendants bring error. Affirmed on condition.Foster & Boucher, for plaintiffs in error.

Gregory, Day & Day, for defendant in error.

RYAN, C.

This action was brought in the district court of Douglas county by the defendant in error for the recovery of damages alleged to have been sustained by the levy of an attachment procured to be issued upon the willfully false affidavit of the plaintiffs in error that the defendant had assigned, removed, and disposed of, and was about to dispose of, his property, or a part thereof, with intent to defraud his creditors. The property levied on was a black horse, and it was alleged in the petition that, without any service of summons, and without any appearance for the defendant in the attachment suit, a judgment had been rendered, upon which an order of sale had issued, and that by virtue thereof said horse had been sold. For the value of this horse, laid at $100, a part of the claim for damages in this case was made. The remaining element of damages claimed was in the petition described in this language: “And this plaintiff further alleges that the plaintiff at the time was engaged in the business of representing the National Supply Company of Chicago, and enjoying the confidence, the faith, and esteem of his acquaintances and his employers and men engaged in business generally who knew him; that by reason of said false, willful, and malicious statements aforesaid, and the suing out of said attachment, his good name, business integrity, and personal honesty has been brought in question, and he has been put to great trouble and loss of time and expense thereby, and has suffered in his business reputation loss and damage in the sum of one thousand dollars.” There was accordingly a prayer for judgment in the sum of $1,100. There was sufficient evidence to justify the jury in finding that the attachment was wrongfully sued out; that the appearance for the purpose of dissolving the attachment was without authority; and that the horse sold was of the value found in the verdict. There was no proof offered as to other damages than the value of the horse, except the testimony of the defendant in error, which was as follows: “Q. Now, Mr. Hallam, with regard to the attachment, you may state whether or not it caused you any annoyance, or otherwise. A. It did. Q. State in what manner. A. In the manner that people knew the horse that I was acquainted with. They were always asking me what I had done with my horse, if I had sold him, or what I had done with him; and to tell them that it was taken under an attachment would be very embarrassing, and I didn't want to lie about it, and the consequence was it left me in bad shape, and I had to always try to evade answering as to how I got rid of the horse. Not longer ago than the day before yesterday I was asked, ‘What did you do with the little black horse?’ and it was very embarrassing for a thing of that kind to slip out of your hands in this way. Q. In what other respects, if any, did you suffer? A. Well, the annoyance of attending a suit to defend myself, and to pay out attorney's fees. It is quite an annoyance to a man to spend his time in this way.”

Omitting the merely formal parts, the verdict of the jury was in this...