¶1The case below was an action of trespass before a Justice of the Peace for direct and immediate injury for destroying certain goods and chattels of the plaintiff below named in the statement filed before the Justice and in the declaration here, and as alleged in them it clearly imports a direct and immediate injury, and not a consequential injury, to the goods and chattels mentioned, which were directly destroyed by the wrongful act alleged in the declaration, and not indirectly as the necessary consequence of the act merely. At common law, therefore, as stated and alleged it was a proper case for an action of trespass vi et armis, and not an *22action of trespass on the case for consequential damages. But the distinction between the actions at common law has long since been abolished by statute in this state which provides that “ In all actions on the case* it shall be no objection to maintaining such actions that, but for this section, the form therefore should have been tresspass; and in all actions of trespass it shall be no objection to maintaining such actions that, but for this section, the form thereof should have been case.” Sec. 11, Rev. Code, 648. And this case having come up in this Court on appeal from an action of trespass before a Justice of the Peace, it can be no objection to maintaining the action on the appeal whether the form of it here is in trespass or is in case. The demurrer is overruled.
13 Del. 19
Conner v. Reardon
Decided November 15, 1887
Superior Court of Delaware · decided 1887-11-15
<p>Appeal from a Justice of the Peace in and for New Castle County. Decided on demurrer to the declaration.</p> <p>Plaintiff filed the following narr. -</p> <p>1. For that the said defendant on the fourth day of September and on divers other days and times before the commencement of this suit, with force and arms, to wit, at New Castle county aforesaid, seized, took and carried away certain goods and chattels of the plaintiff, to wit, thirty-three baskets each containing about five-eighths of a bushel of peaches of great value, to wit, of the value of fifty dollars, and converted and disposed of the same to his own use.</p> <p>2. For that the said defendant on the day and year aforesaid with force and arms, to wit, at New Castle county aforesaid, seized and took certain other goods and chattels of the said plaintiff, to wit, thirty-three other baskets each containing about five-eighths of a bushel of peaches, and overturned, bruised, damaged and destroyed the same, and also drove a certain wagon through, upon and over the said' goods and' chattels, so that the wheels of said wagon crushed, broke, damaged and destroyed the said goods and chattels of the said plaintiff, of great value, etc.</p> <p>To said declaration the defendant demurred and assigned the following reasons.</p> <p>First—For that in and by the said declaration, in the second count thereof, the said plaintiff hath declared and complained against the said defendant in a Plea of Trespass, for the alleged forcible taking over-turning, bruising, damaging and destroying certain goods and chattels by the wheels of a wagon, which it is alleged the defendant drove, being for indirect or consequential injury and damage. And also, for that there are in the same count pretended causes of action, different in their natures, comprehended and included in the same count, to wit: a pretended cause of action founded on a supposed direct and immediate injury to said goods and chattels, and a pretended cause of action grounded on indirect and consequential injuries to said goods and chattels; which are incompatible with each other, and ought not to be joined in the same count: for that indirect and consequential injuries are not within the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace where the case originated; and also, that the said declaration and said counts are in other respects uncertain informal and insufficient.</p>
Decided 1887-11-15