Remington v. . Kirby

26 S.E. 917, 120 N.C. 320
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 26 S.E. 917 (Remington v. . Kirby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Remington v. . Kirby, 26 S.E. 917, 120 N.C. 320 (N.C. 1897).

Opinion

Faiecloth, O. J.

The principal contention of defendant (appellant) before this court was, that there was not sufficient evidence to entitle plaintiff to punitive or exemplary damages, and he requested his Honor to so instruct the jury, which was refused. The defendant, admitting the lease and entry in March, insisted that the latter was lawful by reason of the forfeiture clause in the contract, and, if the entry was unlawful, it was made in good faith and under an honest belief of his right to do so. The jury found these questions against defendant.

The defendant’s eleventh prayer for instruction was,

‘‘That there is no sufficient evidence to entitle the plaintiff to punitive or exemplary damages.” The defendant’s liability for such damages does not depend upon whether he was a wrong doer or'not, but upon the manner and motive of such wrong doing. “Exemplary damages are *325 not recoverable in any action of tort, but only in those where a bad motive is shown, and not for every trespass on land of which a defendant is guilty, but only where it is committed through malice, or accompanied by threats, oppression or rudeness to the owner or occupant. Punitive damages have not been allowed where the testimony tended to show good faith and only a mistake as to authority.” Waters v. Lamber Co., 115 N. C., 648; Hansley v. Rail road., 115 N. C., 602, and the several authorities cited. It will be noticed that, in all the well considered cases allowing punitive damages, w'antonness in some one of its many forms was the controlling element, and illustrations will be found in Wylies. Smitherman, 30 N. C., 236, and Duncan v. Stalcup, 18 N. C., 440. ¥e deem it unnecessary to recite the evidence. We have examined it carefully and fail to find any sufficient evidence to show conduct on the part of defendant to subject him to exemplary damages within 1he rule above declared, and we think the eleventh prayer should have been given.

New Trial.

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

Related

Matthews v. Forrest
69 S.E.2d 553 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Worthy v. . Knight
187 S.E. 771 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Batts v. . Cary and Cary v. . Batts
135 S.E. 341 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Saunders v. . Gilbert
72 S.E. 610 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Warren v. Coharie Lumber Co.
69 S.E. 685 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Jackson v. . Telegraph Co.
51 S.E. 1015 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Ammons v. Railroad
51 S.E. 127 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 S.E. 917, 120 N.C. 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remington-v-kirby-nc-1897.