Weaver v. Miss. & Rum River Boom Co.
| Decision Date | 23 December 1881 |
| Citation | 11 N.W. 113,28 Minn. 542 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | WEAVER v MISSISSIPPI & RUM RIVER BOOM CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from order of district court, county of Hennepin.
J. G. Woolley, for respondent.
Lochren, McNair & Gilfillan, for appellant.
In the consideration of another case at this time, between the same parties, for other acts of trespass arising out of the same state of facts, we have passed upon all the questions arising in the present case except two-one as to the sufficiency of the complaint, and the other as to the exclusion of certain evidence offered on the trial by defendant. The complaint alleges that plaintiff was the owner of certain premises; that defendant, ever since August 23, 1880, has been in the wrongful and unlawful possession of the same, and wrongfully and unlawfully uses and occupies the same with logs and other material; that by reason of such occupation by defendant the plaintiff has been and still is deprived of the use of the same, which he would have had but for such wrongful use and occupation by defendant; that the use and occupation of said premises so used and occupied by defendant during that time was of the worth and reasonable value of $1,000, wherefore plaintiff demands judgment for $1,000.
It is contended that upon the facts stated no action in the nature of an action in assumpsit for use and occupation would lie, and that the pleading is not good as a complaint in trespass, because it does not allege that plaintiff was injured or damaged. We think this point is more technical than sound. Whatever the action may be called, the complaint alleges all the facts necessary to entitle plaintiff to recover for the alleged tortious act of defendant. It is true that the amount of the recovery is to be determined by the amount of damage actually suffered by the plaintiff; but if the trespasses of defendant deprived plaintiff of the use of the premises for a certain time, the value of that use and occupation would be the measure of his damages at least to that extent. If the complaint states the facts showing damage, it is sufficient, although it does not formally close with an ad damnum clause. For like reason, evidence as to the value of the use of the premises of which plaintiff was deprived by the trespass of defendant was competent upon the question of measure of plaintiff's damages.
Upon the trial plaintiff introduced, as bearing upon the value of the use of the premises, an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bourdreaux v. Tucson Gas, Elec. Light & Power Co.
... ... 174; ... Riser v. Walton, 78 Cal. 490, 21 P. 362; Weaver ... v. Boom Co., 28 Minn. 542, 11 N.W. 113; Bank v. Port ... Townsend, ... ...
-
Swallow v. First State Bank
...78 Cal. 490, 21 P. 362; Bartlett v. Odd Fellows' Sav. Bank, 79 Cal. 218, 12 Am. St. Rep. 139, 21 P. 743; Weaver v. Mississippi & R. River Boom Co. 28 Minn. 542, 11 N.W. 113; Bank British Columbia v. Port Townsend, 16 Wash. 450, 47 P. 896. Failure to specify insufficiency of the evidence on ......
-
Monaco v. Jackson Engineering Co.
... ... Under the first point in his main brief he cites Weaver v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co., 28 Minn. 542, 11 N.W. 113 ... ...
-
Bank of British Columbia of Victoria v. City of Port Townsend
... ... Bank, 79 Cal. 218, 21 P. 743 ... See, also, Weaver v. Boom Co., 28 Minn. 542, 11 N.W ... 113, a case directly in ... ...