Stallings v. Corbett

Citations

• 29 S.C.L. 613

Syllabus

<p>1. S. and C. were joint owners of a saw mill, having two saws — each worked a saw. The dam having broken, C. proposed erecting a new mill, but S. insisted on repairing the da m, and going on with the old mill. As to the state of the mill, the evidence was various. Steps were taken by S, for mending the dam, but C. took down the breast opposite his saw, which he never put up, and without which the mill could not operate. It was in evidence, that the breast was in bad condition, and a new one would have cost but little labor. S. abandoned the scheme of repairing either the dam or mill; and C. doing nothing further, the mill remained idle. Held, that in an action brought by S. against C., to recover damages, such compensation as would place him in the same situation he would have been in, if the alleged injury had not been committed, was all that he was entitled to recover.</p> <p>2. It is only in actions for injuries affecting character, that malice enters directly into the estimate of damages.</p> <p>3. In other actions, the malice of the defendant in committing a tort, is not recognized as an element of damage, though it may, and does, tend to enhance, with the jury, the allowance to the plaintiff for such acts as are properly subjects of damage.</p> <p>4. The charge and duty of making indispensable repairs to the common property, devolves equally on the co-tenants. If one refuses to unite with the others, in making the repairs necessary to the use of the property, he cannot maintain an action against them for the loss sustained through want oí such repairs, because no action lies where the damage happens by the negligence or default of the plaintiff himself.</p>