Joice v. Branson

73 Mo. 28
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 73 Mo. 28 (Joice v. Branson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Joice v. Branson, 73 Mo. 28 (Mo. 1880).

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

Action for damages alleged to have been caused by an assault and battery on plaintiff, Nicey L. Joice, the wife of her co-plaintiff’, ¥m. Joice. It was alleged that an abortion resulted from the injury caused by the battery. The answer was a general denial.

I.

The husband was properly joined with the wife as co-plaintiff, and this because the statute requires it. B. S. 1879, § 8468; Edmonson v. Phillips, decided present term. The wife was, however, the substantial party to the suit, and was competent as a witness in her own behalf. Har[29]*29riman v. Stowe, 57 Mo. 93; Owen v. Brockschmidt, 54 Mo. 285; Evers v. Life Association, 59 Mo. 429. The husband was, however, clearly incompetent as a witness, and error was committed in permitting him to testify. In circumstances like those presented in the case at bar, the statute has not modified the common law. Paul v. Leavitt, 53 Mo. 595

As the case must be retried for the error just mentioned, it is unnecessary to consider in detail the other errors assigned, except, perhaps, to say this, that we regard evidence of the circumstances in which the alleged injury occurred as admissible either in aggravation or else mitigation of damages; not, indeed, to excuse the defendant from making full compensation for any actual injury he has inflicted, but for the purpose of showing either that circumstances of malice, gross outrage, oppression or insult accompanied or did not accompany, the act complained of. If the defendant was actuated by no malicious motives, and his act was not attended by any of the circumstances just mentioned, compensatory damages only would be recoverable. Field on Damages, §§ 23, 25, 26, 69, 70, 71,116; Cooley on Torts, 692, 694; 2 Greenleaf Ev., §§ 270, 272. If damages of that class alone are asked the motive of the defendant is wholly immaterial, and can have no bearing on the amount of the recovery. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Related

O'Shea v. Opp
111 S.W.2d 40 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1937)
Lehman v. Lambert
49 S.W.2d 65 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1932)
Gottschall v. Geiger
231 S.W. 87 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1921)
Bond v. Williams
214 S.W. 202 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1919)
Ellis v. Wahl
167 S.W. 582 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Mitchell v. United Railways Co.
102 S.W. 661 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Womach v. City of St. Joseph
100 S.W. 443 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
Oexner v. Loehr
93 S.W. 333 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Tucker v. Gentry
67 S.W. 723 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
In re Cohn
104 F. 328 (D. Missouri, 1900)
Gilfillan v. McCrillis
84 Mo. App. 576 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1900)
Knight v. Sadtler Lead & Zinc Co.
75 Mo. App. 541 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Berryman v. Cox
73 Mo. App. 67 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Berry v. Hartzell
91 Mo. 132 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1886)
Hickman v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
22 Mo. App. 344 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Bell v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad
86 Mo. 599 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Smith v. Warden
86 Mo. 382 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Nichols v. Winfrey
79 Mo. 544 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Wood v. Broadley
76 Mo. 23 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 Mo. 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joice-v-branson-mo-1880.