Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Allen

42 So. 666, 89 Miss. 832
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 42 So. 666 (Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Allen, 42 So. 666, 89 Miss. 832 (Mich. 1906).

Opinion

Mayes, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The testimony in this case did not warrant the court in giving the second instruction for appellee, in which the jury are told that they might assess puuitive damages. There is nothing which shows willfulness, oppression, or willful disregard of the rights of appellee, or any other willful wrong. In the case of Vicksburg, etc., Co. v. Marlett, 78 Miss., 873 (s.c., 29 South. Rep., 62), the court has said: “Punitive damages may be recovered only in cases where the acts complained of are characterized by malice, fraud, oppression, or willful wrong, evincing a disregard of the rights of others. There must be some element of one or more of the qualities or properties named, relating to the acts made the ground of action, before exemplary damages may be inflicted.” The testimony in this case utterly fails to establish any element in the conduct of appellant, tested by the above rule, which would warrant the imposition of exemplary damages, and the instruction given by the court on this line was erroneous. This authority is repeated in .the case of Telegraph Co. v. Spratley, 84 Miss., 86 (s.c., 36 South. Rep., 188), and in the case of Telephone Co. v. Baker, 85 Miss., 486 (s.c., 37 South. Rep., 1012).

The testimony, undoubtedly shows that appellant was somewhat careless in not seeing to it that the call was delivered to Burton; but it is equally certain that there was no willful or intentional wrong intended. The measure of damages in this [838]*838case is actual damage sustained by appellee, and the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that appellee could only recover his actual damage.

For these reasons the case is,,reversed and remanded.

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

Related

South Cent. Bell v. Epps
509 So. 2d 886 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1987)
Bradley v. Associates Discount Corp.
92 So. 2d 468 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1957)
Lawrence v. State
32 So. 2d 223 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1947)
Williams v. State
163 So. 663 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1935)
State v. Peacock
107 P. 1022 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 So. 666, 89 Miss. 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cumberland-telephone-telegraph-co-v-allen-miss-1906.