Pearpoint v. Henry

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Pearpoint v. Henry

2 Va. 192

Court of Appeals of Virginia·Decided April 15, 1796·Published

Opinion

Roane J.

It seems to be the better opinion, that a declaration in this action need not state the price of the thing converted, though this is necessary in the action of detinue, where the thing itself, or the value is to be recovered. In the former case* it is not the price which the plaintiff goes for, but damages for the conversion: and even where the price is laid, he may recover more or less, provided the damages do not exceed those laid in the declaration.

The Court affirmed the judgment.

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

Roane J.

It seems to be the better opinion, that a declaration in this action need not state the price of the thing converted, though this is necessary in the action of detinue, where the thing itself, or the value is to be recovered. In the former case* it is not the price which the plaintiff goes for, but damages for the conversion: and even where the price is laid, he may recover more or less, provided the damages do not exceed those laid in the declaration.

The Court affirmed the judgment.

Pearpoint v. Henry, 2 Va. 192 (Va. Ct. App. 1796).

Pincite

2 Va. 192 (Pearpoint v. Henry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.