History
  • No items yet
midpage
Burton v. Holley
29 Ala. 318
Ala.
1856
Check Treatment
RICE, C. J.

In an action for the wrongful taking and withholding of the plaintiff’s slaves, he cannot recover special damage, which is not, in legal contemplation, the natural and *320proximate consequence of the tortious act alleged in his complaint. The special damage, which the evidence offered by the plaintiff in. this case, and excluded by the court, tended to prove, was not the natoal and proximate consequence of the tortious act alleged in his complaint. There was, therefore, no error in excluding that evidence. — Sims v. Glazener, 14 Ala. R. 695; Donnell v. Jones, 13 ib. 490 ; Walker v. Walker, 26 ib. 211; Ivey v. McQueen, 11 Ala. R. 408.

No question is raised by the evidence, or by the argument of appellant’s Counsel, as to the right of a plaintiff in such a case as this to recover vindictive damages ; and therefore we decide nothing in this case, as to that question. — See Sims v. Glazener, and Ivey v. McQueen, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Burton v. Holley
Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama
Date Published: Jun 15, 1856
Citation: 29 Ala. 318
Court Abbreviation: Ala.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.