Bailey v. Jeffords

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Bailey v. Jeffords

29 S.C.L. 271

DecidedJanuary 15, 1844

StatusPublished

This text of 29 S.C.L. 271 (Bailey v. Jeffords) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Jeffords, 29 S.C.L. 271 (S.C. Ct. App. 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

Ouria, per

Richardson, J.

In the case of Richardson vs. Dukes, 4 M’Cord, 156, which was trespass for shooting a negro, it was adjudged, that even in actions of tort, as in the case before the Court, where property is destroyed, its value furnishes the measure of damages; from which if the jury materially depart, the Court will order a new trial; and accordingly a new trial was ordered in that case. This rule has been recognized and acted upon in several other cases, and is essential to the peace, order and justice of civil government. In torts, other than for the destruction of property, no specific measure of damages can be laid down. But the value of property wilfully destroyed would seem to be due ex debito justicias. A new trial is therefore ordered.

O’Neall, Evans, Butler and Wardlaw, JJ. concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ouria, per

Richardson, J.

In the case of Richardson vs. Dukes, 4 M’Cord, 156, which was trespass for shooting a negro, it was adjudged, that even in actions of tort, as in the case before the Court, where property is destroyed, its value furnishes the measure of damages; from which if the jury materially depart, the Court will order a new trial; and accordingly a new trial was ordered in that case. This rule has been recognized and acted upon in several other cases, and is essential to the peace, order and justice of civil government. In torts, other than for the destruction of property, no specific measure of damages can be laid down. But the value of property wilfully destroyed would seem to be due ex debito justicias. A new trial is therefore ordered.

O’Neall, Evans, Butler and Wardlaw, JJ. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 S.C.L. 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-jeffords-scctapp-1844.