157 P. 177 | Mont. | 1916
delivered the opinion of the court.
Action for damages for trespass on land. The complaint alleges that at the time the wrong complained of was committed, plaintiff was in possession and entitled.to the possession of lands situate in Blaine (now Phillips) county, a part of which it owns in fee, and the remainder of which it holds under leases; that defendants were copartners and were the owners of or chargeable with the care of about 10,000 head of sheep; that on July 26, 1911, the defendants, without plaintiff’s consent and against its wishes, willfully and maliciously drove their sheep upon plaintiff’s said lands, and from that date to and including August 3, 1911, held them in herd there, with the result that they ate off and destroyed the hay and grass growing thereon,
At the trial the defendants recovered a verdict for nominal
There was much conflict in the testimony of the witnesses as to the extent of the injury suffered by the plaintiff. On the whole, we think the amount claimed excessive. But nevertheless a case was made for the jury which justified a verdict in some amount. Whether it would have justified an award by way of punitive damages it is not now necessary to consider. Under no view of the case were the defendants entitled to recover upon their counterclaim.
It is earnestly argued by counsel for defendants that since
Doubtless the measure of damages will vary according to the circumstances of the particular case. We are hot required, however, to consider and determine what items plaintiff is entitled to recover in this case.
We have decided this case upon the points submitted. Nothing said herein is to be understood as a recognition of a right in defendants to interpose in this case a counterclaim of the character of that alleged in their answer.
The order is affirmed.
Affirmed.