Wallace v. Finch
| Decision Date | 09 January 1872 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | John H. Wallace v. James T. Finch |
Heard January 4, 1872
Error to Van Buren circuit.
Judgment reversed with costs, and a new trial ordered.
Newton Foster and D. Darwin Hughes, for plaintiff in error.
Stephenson & Barnum, and H. F. Severens, for defendant in error.
Finch sued Wallace in the court below in an action of trespass to recover damages for cutting on his land, and carrying away a quantity of forest trees. The action was founded on § 1 of Ch. 111, of the R. S., of 1846, entitled "Of trespasses on lands;" and on the trial the jury found in favor of the plaintiff for four hundred and eighty-six dollars, and stated in the verdict that "the defendant did not have probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespasses were committed was his own."
The court, on motion of the plaintiff, awarded judgment for three times the amount found by the jury. The case comes up on exceptions, and the first is based on the judge's ruling which allowed the witness Numaugh, against the objection that he was not competent, to state his judgment of the value of the land where the alleged trespass was done. This ruling was clearly proper. The witness was a farmer who had then resided in the vicinity of the property for several years, and was well acquainted with it. He owned a piece of land near these premises, and had known of the sale and purchase of lands near by. Nothing more was needed to show that he was competent to testify respecting the value of the premises.
The important point in the case relates to the question of damages. The section on which the plaintiff counted, allows a recovery for treble damages when the mischief is done without leave of the owner of the land; but the next section, in express terms, limits the recovery to single damages, when it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary; or when the wood, trees or timber were taken to make or repair a public road or bridge; or when the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was done was his own.
The plaintiff in error concedes that the trespass in this case was not casual or involuntary, and that the timber was not taken for a road or bridge; and he does not dispute that he made himself liable in single damages recoverable in a common law action. But he insists, that it appeared by the evidence that he had made a contract, by correspondence with Finch, to buy the land, and that he was, therefore, not liable under the statute, and certainly not liable beyond single damages, and that the court, in giving the case to the jury, did not properly instruct them on this subject.
It appears by the bill of exceptions that evidence was given tending to show that Finch resided in Ohio, while Wallace lived in Van Buren county, where the land is, and that the latter wrote to the former in December, 1868, and made him an offer of three thousand dollars for the land; that Finch replied that he would not sell at that price, but would for three thousand two hundred dollars, with one thousand six hundred dollars down, and the balance in two equal annual payments, secured by mortgage on the property; that Wallace then replied by letter pre-paid, duly addressed and mailed, announcing his acceptance of Finch's offer; that this letter failed to reach Finch until the expiration of some three weeks, in consequence of the delay of the mail, caused by ice or high water in the river along which it was carried; that during this interval, and before the letter accepting the offer reached Finch, the latter sold the land to another party, and that all the acts of trespass were committed between the time when the letter accepting the offer was mailed to Finch, and the reception by Wallace of Finch's letter, explaining the delay and announcing the sale of the property to another.
It is not pretended that this correspondence, or any contract made by it, embraced any license to Wallace, or conferred any right upon him to enter upon the land or to take anything from it, and certainly no view can be taken of it in which it could avail to save Wallace from the legal liability attached to a trespass having no element of willfulness, wantonness or evil design in it. And it is not perceived that it could avail him as any defense against a claim for single damages under the statute in question. The question of treble damages, however stands on a different principle altogether. When this law gives single damages it has a single object and that is to redress the injured party. But when the damages are to be trebled, the object is twofold, namely: to redress the injury done, and also to punish the wrong-doer. No other explanation of these provisions is possible, and according to well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jongeward v. BNSF Ry. Co.
...be trebled, the object is two-fold, namely: to redress the injury done, and also to punish the wrong-doer.’ ” (quoting Wallace v. Finch, 24 Mich. 255, 1872 WL 5931, at *2)). When only single damages are being imposed, as in the case of a casual or involuntary trespass, the statute does not ......
-
Tilden v. Hubbard
...crops, stock or services, and the damages done thereto, are admissible." To the same effect is Townsend v. Brundage, 4 Hun 264; Wallace v. Finch, 24 Mich. 255; Chicago etc. Co. v. Larsen, 19 Colo. 71, 34 P. 477. We are inclined to think that counsel for appellant is in error in questioning ......
-
Chrome Plating Co. v. Wis. Elec. Power Co.
...We can hardly think such a case was within the contemplation of the Legislature. In that case reliance was placed on the case of Wallace v. Finch, 24 Mich. 255, where a similar statute had been similarly construed. “Again, in Schumacher v. Falter, 113 Wis. 563, 89 N.W. 485, and Johnson v. H......
-
City of Detroit v. Fid. Realty Co.
...His testimony was therefore excluded. While this court has been quite liberal in admitting testimony as to land values (see Wallace v. Finch, 24 Mich. 255;Stone v. Covell, 29 Mich. 359;Huff v. Hall, 56 Mich. 456, 23 N. W. 88;McCormick v. Bradbury, 187 Mich. 512, 153 N. W. 780), we are not p......