Kennedy v. Meacham

• Decision Date: 07 July 1883
• Citation: 18 F. 312
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
• Parties: KENNEDY v. MEACHAM and others.

18 F. 312

KENNEDY v. MEACHAM and others.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Tennessee.

July 7, 1883

M. F Kennedy was a cotton buyer who for a long time lived in Memphis. He made an arrangement with Meacham & Co. to take his cotton for sale at 75 cents a bale, to cover all charges and no interest to be counted against him, according to his contention. This contract was made with the cotton salesman of the firm whose authority was disputed by the firm. When the season was closed there was a balance of $140 due Kennedy, without interest, but counting interest there was a balance against him of $149. Kennedy denied any liability for interest, and was corroborated by the cotton salesman, who told the firm he had made a contract with him by which he was to pay no interest. During the next year, Kennedy having formed a partnership to do business at Fort Smith, Arkansas was buying goods from Memphis merchants, when Meacham & Co. placed their claim in the hands of a commercial agency for collection, which was returned. They threatened to attach and Kennedy, being notified by telegraph, came to Memphis and told the firm that he would pay the debt if the salesman with whom he made the contract would say he owed it. He begged them not to attach, as it would injure his credit and interfere with his business arrangements. Friends of Kennedy also went to members of the firm with letters from the salesman, explaining that Kennedy did not owe the balance for interest, and also begged that Kennedy be not attached, as it would injure him. They did attach before Justice Galloway, after consulting their lawyer, and the case was decided in favor of Kennedy and against Meacham. Kennedy then brought suit in this court for $10,000 damages. The jury brought in a verdict for $600 damages for the plaintiff.

Gantt & Patterson, for defendants.

H. C. Young, J. M. Harris, Taylor & Carroll, and Metcalf & Walker, for plaintiff.

HAMMOND J., (charging jury.)

1. The judgment against M. L. Meacham & Co. in the attachment suit before the justice of the peace is conclusive of the right of the plaintiff to secure the actual damages resulting to him from the wrongful suing out of the attachment. The only possible question for you, on this branch of the case, is the amount of the actual damages. That he is entitled to recover the expenditure of money for coming from his home in Arkansas to Memphis, when called here by the telegram to give attention to the attachment suit, there can be no doubt. This expenditure was not covered by costs, as it sometimes is in other states, where it is allowed as costs, and of course not recoverable as damages. But here such expenses are not included in the costs of suit, and therefore all money necessarily expended for traveling expenses and in defense of the suit, not included in the costs, are a fair proof of damages which you may award. Of course, money expended outside of and not necessarily as expenses in the suit cannot be recovered, nor can counsel fees be recovered. The plaintiff may also recover such other sum as will compensate him for any injury done to his credit, by which the law does not mean only a credit based on solvency, as shown by the relative comparison of debts and assets to meet them. A merchant who owns property in excess of his debts, who has abundant assets and small debts, may enjoy mercantile credit and usually does, if besides he has integrity of character, business capacity, and that sense of obligation which causes him to scrupulously protect his credit by prompt payment of his debts and honest dealings in his business. The relative amount of debts and assets is undoubtedly an important element in estimating the extent or value of any merchant's credit, and cannot be overlooked by you in determining the injury that has been alleged to have been the result of the wrongful suing out of the attachment. But the law does not confine its protection in this respect to a credit based on property in hand, or available to secure that credit. It extends also to that credit which is based on integrity and business capacity, and the trusting confidence which relies on them. Be it great or small, no one has any right to injure it without liability to pay damages that will compensate for the injury. The value of such credit, and indeed all credit, varies according to the circumstances in the case. Therefore, proof in this case has been admitted to show fully all the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff at the time of the suing out of this attachment, in order that you may be enabled to determine what his credit was founded on, its extent and value, and the injury there has been, if any, to it by the suing out the attachment. The plaintiff is not entitled to damages based on any speculative estimate of his injury, but only to such actual loss of credit as he has sustained from the wrongful attachment, and...