Chipman v. Emeric

Decided July 1, 1855

California Supreme Court · decided 1855-07-01

The opinion of the Court contains the facts. E. W. F. Sloan and A. M. Crane, for Appellant, contended that the action of the Court below was erroneous, and cited 3 Bac., Ab., 81. G, Rees v. Emeric, 6 S. and R., 288. Newcomb v. Butterfield, 8 Johns., 342. Livingston v. Platner, 1 Cow., 175. Benton v. Dale, 1 Ib. ,160. King v. Havens, 25 Wend., 419. Germain v. Booth, 1 Denio, 639. 2 Wend., 247.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1920

1 district · 6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1Murray, C. J , and Bryan, J., concurred.

¶2 *240This was an action of waste at common law. The jury found for the plaintiff and the Court trebled the damages under the statute.

¶3The rule is laid down in Bacon’s Abridgment that “when treble damages are given by a statute, the demand for such damages must be expressly inserted in the declaration, which must either recite the statute or conclude to the damage of the plaintiff against the form of a statute.” See also, Rees v. Emeric, 6 S. and R., 288. Newcomb v. Butterfield, 8 Johns., 342. Livingston v. Platner, 1 Cow., 175. Benton v. Dalea, Ib., 160.

¶4Upon the weight of these authorities the judgment is reversed, and judgment ordered to be here entered in favor of the plaintiffs for the single damages found by the verdict.