Skip to main content
· 5/4/1883

Shook v. Peters

Citations

  • 59 Tex. 393
  • 2 Tex. L. R. 56
  • 1883 Tex. LEXIS 180

Syllabus

<p>1. Pleading.— See statement o£ case for allegations in a petition to recover damages-for personal injuries wrongfully inflicted, held sufficiently certain.</p> <p>2. Evidence — Reconvention.— A former malicious prosecution by the plaintiff of the defendant will not afford matter of defense to an action by plaintiff to recover damages claimed for personal injuries inflicted by an assault, nor con injury to defendant resulting from such action be pleaded in reconvention against the suit for damages.</p> <p>3. -Evidence — Pleading.— All facts proper to be considered in mitigation of damages, in an action to recover damages, are admissible under a general denial.</p> <p>4. Evidence.— A verdict of not guilty in a criminal prosecution for an assault is nob admissible in defense to an action for damages caused by the assault. But a conviction and payment of fine might be shown in mitigation of exemplary damages, if pleaded.</p> <p>5. Evidence.— In a suit for damages for personal injuries inflicted by an assault, the parties were unknown to each other until the time when the assault was committed; there being direct evidence of the assault and battery by the defendant, evidence of the former character of plaintiff for turbulence was properly excluded.</p> <p>6. Exemplary damages.— In such a suit a charge “ that if the striking was done wantonly and without justification, ” etc., the jury might find exemplary damages, is not subject to the objection that it conveys the idea that the words “ wantonly ” and “ without justification ” are in contemplation of law synonymous. Such a charge conveys in apt words the idea that the act must not only have been wanton, but also without justification, to authorize a verdict for exemplary damages.</p> <p>7. Damages — Charge oe court.— When actual and exemplary damages are claimed, though the jury should be charged to distinguish between them in their verdict, a failure to so charge will not be ground for reversal if there be no request

Judges: Stayton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.