Johnson v. Aldridge

• Citation: 9 So. 513,93 Ala. 77
• Parties: JOHNSON v. ALDRIDGE.
• Decision Date: 15 June 1891
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

9 So. 513

93 Ala. 77

JOHNSON v. ALDRIDGE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 15, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Coffee county; J. M. CARMICHAEL, Judge.

Action by appellant, P. D. Johnson, against appellee, J. T Aldridge, founded on a claim for rent and advances. Defendant pleaded the general issue, and also pleaded as set-off against a claim of the plaintiff the damage done to his crop by the plaintiff's stock. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

W D. Roberts, for appellant.

J E. P. Flournoy, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

The suit was brought by plaintiff as landlord against the defendant for rent and advances made to him as tenant. The defendant pleaded specially by way of set-off and recoupment damages to the cotton crop caused by plaintiff's mules. Plaintiff demurred to the plea, but no judgment seems to have been taken upon the demurrer. Plaintiff objected to the introduction of evidence offered by defendant in support of the plea of set-off. "Sounding damages merely" has been defined by this court to mean "that class of claims for which the law furnishes no standard of measurement, even when the facts are ascertained. Action of trespass, assault and battery, actions for slander, malicious prosecution, and the like are of this class." Collins v. Greene, 67 Ala 215. "Trespass," as here used, was intended to apply to assault and battery, meaning trespass on the person. The comma after trespass is an error in punctuation. Damage done to a growing crop, or to a crop matured and ungathered has a legal standard of measurement, and may be pleaded as a set-off. There was no error in the admission of the evidence. Sledge v. Swift, 53 Ala. 113. Plaintiff in his own behalf testified that he turned his mules into the defendant's cotton-patch, but that it was done with defendant's consent. Although the evidence of defendant may have contradicted this statement, and it may not have been credited by the judge, the statement was in evidence for the consideration of the jury, and it was for the jury to determine whether it was true. The court charged the jury that if plaintiff's mules run in defendant's cotton-patch, and damaged his crop, the defendant would be entitled to set off the damage sustained. If the plaintiff's mules were turned in the cotton-patch of defendant, with the consent of the defendant, and the damage resulted from such consent, then defendant proximately contributed to his own damage,...