Williams v. Hathaway

• Decision Date: 26 February 1900
• Parties: WILLIAMS et al. v. HATHAWAY.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

45 A. 578

21 R.I. 566

WILLIAMS et al.

v. HATHAWAY.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Feb. 26, 1900.

Exceptions from court of common pleas, Providence county.

Action by Martha A. Williams and others against Henry B. Hathaway. Verdict for plaintiffs, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained unless plaintiffs enter a remittitur.

George A. Littlefield, for plaintiffs.

William A. Morgan, for defendant.

STINESS, J. The instruction of the trial judge, that in assessing damages the jury should not allow for any resulting improvement to the lot in question, was correct. The reason is obvious. The action being trespass for entering the plaintiffs' close and carrying away soil, the measure of damages is the value of the soil as it lay on the lot, no question being made but that it was done in good faith. If the plaintiffs had sold the soil, they would have got its value, and have had the resulting benefit of grading besides. To deduct the benefit, therefore, from the price of the soil taken away, would deprive them of the value of the improvement which they might have had, in addition to such price, but for the unlawful act of the defendant. The cases cited by the defendant are of a different character. Such as may be considered here are cases where the defendant has added improvements to a plaintiff's land, which he would not otherwise have had, and, as they became the plaintiff's property, it was held that his damage was less by the value thus added. In Mayo v. City of Springfield, 138 Mass. 70, the defendant put earth upon the plaintiff's lot, which the latter used in filling up other parts of the close. In Morrison v. Robinson, 31 Pa. St. 456, a building was erected on the plaintiff's land. So, also, in Putnam v. Ritchie, 6 Paige, 390. It is clear that where one has received value, by way of an addition to his property, his damage is thereby less. The defendant in this case added nothing to the plaintiff's property. Luther v. Winnisimmet, 9 Cush. 171, was an action on the case for resulting damage from the defendant's filling of his own land. In such a case benefit would necessarily enter into the measure of damage. Other cases cited were trespass for mesne profits, which do not apply to the question here raised.

At the trial the defendant objected to the opinion of a witness as to the value of two trees which stood upon this lot, and which were removed by the defendant. His testimony should not have been admitted. He was neither an expert...