Marsh-Burke Co. v. Yost

Nebraska Supreme Court

Marsh-Burke Co. v. Yost

170 N.W. 172, 102 Neb. 814, 1918 Neb. LEXIS 168

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 14, 1918

DocketNo. 20214

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 170 N.W. 172 (Marsh-Burke Co. v. Yost) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marsh-Burke Co. v. Yost, 170 N.W. 172, 102 Neb. 814, 1918 Neb. LEXIS 168 (Neb. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Morrissey, C. J.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover, as exemplary damages, under section 4062, Rev. St. 1913, twice the amount of compehsatory damages awarded it in a previous suit. The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the petition, and plaintiff appeals.

In the former suit (Marsh-Burke Co. v. Yost, 98 Neb. 523) plaintiff obtained a verdict for $38,000 actual damages, resulting from a conspiracy to drive it out of business. The trial court reduced this verdict to $23,000, and plaintiff, rather than ..submit to a new trial, permitted judgment to be entered for that amount. Thereafter a motion was filed to have this judgment trebled, under section 4062, Rev. St. 1913, which provides that, in actions of the character involved, the plaintiff is entitled to recover threefold damages. The court denied this motion, and, when the' case was brought to this court by defendant, plaintiff filed a [815]*815cross-appeal. This court, in its opinion, disposed of the cross-appeal in the following language:

“By its cross-appeal plaintiff contends that the district court erred in refusing to render a, judgment in its favor for triple damages. It must he observed that the plaintiff, by its petition, prayed only for compensatory damages. No claim was made in any of the pleadings or proceedings at any time for triple damages, as provided by section 4062 of the Junldn act, until after the trial court had rendered its judgment on the verdict. The case appears to have been tried and submitted to the jury on the theory that plaintiff should recover only compensation for the injuries it had sustained by defendant’s unlawful acts. It would also seem that plaintiff, by filing its remittitur of $15,000, and asking the court to render a judgment for $23,000, was not thereafter in a position to require the court to ¿ripie the amount of the judgment.”

Plaintiff, by praying only for compensatory damages, by remitting a portion of the verdict to avoid a new trial, and by consenting to the entry of a judgment for the lesser amount, waived any right which it may have had under the statute to claim triple damages.

The demurrer was properly sustained, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Letton, Rose and Aldrich, JJ., not sitting.

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

Morrissey, C. J.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover, as exemplary damages, under section 4062, Rev. St. 1913, twice the amount of compehsatory damages awarded it in a previous suit. The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the petition, and plaintiff appeals.

In the former suit (Marsh-Burke Co. v. Yost, 98 Neb. 523) plaintiff obtained a verdict for $38,000 actual damages, resulting from a conspiracy to drive it out of business. The trial court reduced this verdict to $23,000, and plaintiff, rather than ..submit to a new trial, permitted judgment to be entered for that amount. Thereafter a motion was filed to have this judgment trebled, under section 4062, Rev. St. 1913, which provides that, in actions of the character involved, the plaintiff is entitled to recover threefold damages. The court denied this motion, and, when the' case was brought to this court by defendant, plaintiff filed a [815]*815cross-appeal. This court, in its opinion, disposed of the cross-appeal in the following language:

“By its cross-appeal plaintiff contends that the district court erred in refusing to render a, judgment in its favor for triple damages. It must he observed that the plaintiff, by its petition, prayed only for compensatory damages. No claim was made in any of the pleadings or proceedings at any time for triple damages, as provided by section 4062 of the Junldn act, until after the trial court had rendered its judgment on the verdict. The case appears to have been tried and submitted to the jury on the theory that plaintiff should recover only compensation for the injuries it had sustained by defendant’s unlawful acts. It would also seem that plaintiff, by filing its remittitur of $15,000, and asking the court to render a judgment for $23,000, was not thereafter in a position to require the court to ¿ripie the amount of the judgment.”

Plaintiff, by praying only for compensatory damages, by remitting a portion of the verdict to avoid a new trial, and by consenting to the entry of a judgment for the lesser amount, waived any right which it may have had under the statute to claim triple damages.

The demurrer was properly sustained, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Letton, Rose and Aldrich, JJ., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 N.W. 172, 102 Neb. 814, 1918 Neb. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marsh-burke-co-v-yost-neb-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack