Opinion of the Court.

ering the opinion of the court, held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial, because, among other grounds, of an erroneous instruction to the jury as to the rule of damages, said (p. 240):

"It has lately been determined by this court, in several cases, that a jury cannot give vindictive damages in an action of trover. The value of the property, with such damages as must necessarily be supposed to flow from the conversion, is the only true measure. Such, for instance, as the work and labor of negroes; interest on the value of dead property, etc."

In 1853, in Harley v. Platts, 6 Richardson, 310, an action of trover brought to recover the value of four slaves, a new trial asked for on the ground of excessive damages was refused, it being held that the verdict was warranted by the evidence, under the rule allowing the jury to give the highest value up to the time of trial, with interest, or hire. Glover, J., delivering the opinion of the court, said (p. 318):

"In trover, the jury is not limited to finding the mere value of the property at the time of conversion; but may find, as damages, the value at a subsequent time, at their discretion. 3 Steph. N. P. 2711. The jury may give the highest value up to the time of trial. Kid v. Mitchell, 1 N. & McC. 334. In Burney v. Pledger, 3 Rich. 191, Judge O'Neall says, That the plaintiff is entitled to recover for the value of the property at the time of the trial, with interest; or for the value of the property at the time of the trial, with hire from the conversion, as may be most beneficial.' And in Rodgers v. Randall, 2 Sp. 38, it was held that the jury have a discretion between the highest and lowest estimates.

"Governed by these rules, so long and so repeatedly established, the evidence appears to have authorized the conclusion attained by the jury in this case."

That the decisions referred to are applicable under the code was recognized in the case of Sullivan v. Sullivan, (1883) 20 S. C. 509, an action of claim and delivery to recover the possession of certain notes with damages for their detention, where it was held by the appellate court that, in addition to a recovery of the notes, the plaintiff was entitled to recover

Opinion of the Court.

the amount they had diminished in value while in the hands of defendant. After quoting section 298 (formerly section 300) of the code, which we have heretofore referred to, the court said (p. 512):

"The code has made no material changes in the primary rights of parties, or in the causes of action, nor has it given any new redress for wrongs perpetrated. It has only changed the mode by which such redress is reached and applied. The rights and remedies (using the term 'remedy' in the sense of 'redress') are still the same.

"The action below was an action for the recovery of personal property and damages for its detention. It was an action in the nature of the old action of trover. It will not be denied that in actions of that kind, under the former practice, (as a general rule,) damages for detention beyond the property itself could be, and were uniformly recovered, such damages being measured by different rules, according to the character of the property and the circumstances of each case. See case of McDowell v. Murdock, 1 Nott & McCord, 237, where the court said: 'It has lately been determined by this court, in several cases, that a jury cannot give vindictive damages in an action of trover. The value of the property, with such damages as must necessarily be supposed to flow from the conversion, is the true measure. Such, for instance, as the work and labor of negroes; interest on the value of dead property.' Buford v. Fannen, 1 Bay, 2d ed. 273; Harley v. Platts, 6 Rich. 318 Kid v. Mitchell, 1 Nott & McCord, 334."

A recent decision construing the provisions of the action of claim and delivery of personal property is Loeb v. Mann, 39 S. C. 465, in which the defendant, a sheriff, was alleged to have wrongfully and unlawfully taken from the plaintiffs and to have unjustly detained from them certain liquors. Bond having been given, the goods were taken from the possession of the defendants and delivered to the plaintiffs. The appellate court, in the course of its opinion, held that the trial judge erred in permitting evidence of expenditures by the plaintiffs for hotel bills, railroad fare and attorney's fees, and

Opinion of the Court.

declared that such damages were not recoverable for the detention of the property. The court said (p. 469):

"It is urged that this action of 'claim and delivery' is peculiar in this, that the law expressly gives to the prevailing party damages in addition to costs and disbursements. It is true that section 283 of the code provides as follows:

"In an action for the recovery of specific personal property, if the property have not been delivered to the plaintiff, or if it have, and the defendant by his answer claims a return thereof, the jury shall assess the value of the property, if their verdict be in favor of the plaintiff, or if they find in favor of the defendant, and that he is entitled to a return thereof; may at the same time assess the damages, if any are claimed in the complaint or answer, which the prevailing party has sustained by reason of the detention or taking and withholding such property,' etc. What damages? Why, surely such damages as may have been sustained by reason of the seizure and detention of the property. itself; that is to say, by direct and proximate injury of the property in question, or in reducing its value; and not for the purpose of allowing a party to reimburse himself as to consequential losses alleged to have been sustained in the prosecution of the case, in respect to the speculative value of time lost, and the payment of the bills of railroads and hotels, lawyers' fees,' etc."

6

After reviewing authorities in support of the proposition that counsel fees were not allowable as damages for the detention of property, for the reason that they could not be said to be the necessary result of the act done by the defendant, the court said (p. 471):

"It is true that the decided cases do not seem to be as full and clear in reference to the other items of expenditures claimed here as damages; but we confess that in respect to damages, we are unable to draw a distinction in principle between expenses incurred in paying lawyers' fees and in making a charge for the speculative loss of time and paying railroad and hotel bills, etc."

Under the decisions to which we have referred, it is evident

Opinion of the Court.

that, in the case at bar, the measure of damages for the detention was interest on the value of the property from the time of the wrong complained of. This rule of damages has been held by this court to be the proper measure even in an action of trespass for a seizure of personal property where the facts connected with the seizure did not entitle the plaintiff to a recovery of exemplary damages. An action of this character was the case of Conard v. Pacific Insurance Co., 6 Pet. 262. In the course of the opinion there delivered by Mr. Justice Story, the court held that the trial judge did not err in giving to the jury the following instruction:

"The general rule of damage is the value of the property taken, with interest from the time of the taking down to the trial. This is generally considered as the extent of the damages sustained, and this is deemed legal compensation with reference solely to the injury done to the property taken, and not to any collateral or consequential damages, resulting to the owner, by the trespass."

Indeed the same rule was in effect reiterated in Watson v. Sutherland, 5 Wall. 74, 79, where it was substantially held that "loss of trade, destruction of credit and failure of business prospects" could not be recovered in an action at law where malice or bad faith was not an ingredient, because such damages were collateral or consequential as regards a seizure of personal property, and could only be recovered at law where the issue of bad faith was involved. In other words, that however at law such damages might be considered when the suit was based upon a malicious trespass they were not a proximate result of an injury to property caused by an illegal seizure thereof.

The courts of South Carolina, as we have seen, have held that in an action of trover consequential damages are not recoverable, and have also held that in the action of claim and delivery damages for the detention must have respect to the property and to a direct injury arising from the detention. Destruction of business not being of the latter character, it follows that the special damages averred in the complaint were not recoverable.

Syllabus.

It results that as the plaintiff's action was solely one for claim and delivery of property alleged to have been unlawfully detained and for damages for the detention thereof, the amount of recovery depended first upon the alleged value of the property, which in the present case was one thousand dollars, and such damages as it was by operation of law allowed to recover in the action in question. As, however, by way of damages in an action of this character, recovery was only allowable for the actual damage caused by the detention, and could not embrace a cause of damage which was not in legal contemplation the proximate result of the wrongful detention, and such recovery was confined, as we have seen, to interest on the value of the property, it results that there was nothing in the damages alleged in the petition and properly recoverable adequate, when added to the value of the property, to have conferred upon the court jurisdiction to have entertained a consideration of the suit. Upon the face of the complaint, therefore, the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction over the action, and it erred in deciding to the contrary.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina is reversed with costs and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

ANDERSEN v. UNITED STATES.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.

No. 583. Argued April 11, 1898. Decided May 9, 1898.

The indictment in this case, which is set forth at length in the statement of the case, alleged the murder to have been committed "on the high seas, and within the jurisdiction of this court, and within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the said United States of America, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State of the said United States of VOL. CLXX-31