2 La. 393 | La. | 1831
delivered the opinion of the court.
This suit was commenced originally to establish the limit or boundary of contiguous tracts of land, claimed by plaintiff and defendant. The former obtained a judgment by which she gained about thirteen arpens; and the suit is now prosecuted to recover damages, or, more properly, the fruits and revenues of the land which was adjudged to the plaintiff, for the period during which it was possessed by the defendant. The cause was submitted to a jury in the court below, who estimated the damages at nine hundred and ninety dollars, and gave a verdict for this amount. From a judgment rendered in pursuance thereof, the defendant appealed.
Previous to taking the appeal, a motion was made for a new trial, which was overruled. This motion appears to have been based on the ground of excess in the damages allowed by the jury, as being wholly unsupported by the evidence of the case.
We agree in opinion with the counsel of the defendant, and think the judge a quo erred in not granting the new trial. It is not a case without data constituting a criterion by which damages may be estimated, independent of arbitrary opinions entertained by a jury. It is not like a claim of reparation in damages for injuries done to the person or reputation
The damages assessed by the jury appear to us so enormous, so illy supported by the testimony of the cause, that we feel ourselves compelled to reverse the judgment of the court below.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be avoided, reversed, and annulled, and the verdict set aside. And it is further ordered . that the cause be sent back to said court, to be tried de nova; and that the appellee pay the costs of this appeal.