(Download) "Clinton Cox and Roger D. Cox v. Lloyd" by Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10906 ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Clinton Cox and Roger D. Cox v. Lloyd
- Author : Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10906
- Release Date : January 27, 1972
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 72 KB
Description
Plaintiffs-respondents Clinton Cox and Roger D. Cox, father and son, instituted this action against defendant-appellant Lloyd
Stolworthy, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for trespass upon premises held by the Coxes under a lease from the
State of Idaho. In their complaint the plaintiffs alleged wilful and malicious trespass by the defendant in bulldozing about
half a mile of road through the premises and in destruction of a fence; they also alleged wilful and malicious trespass by
the defendant or his agents in running sheep over the plaintiff's property. By his answer defendant admitted the trespass
incidents, except for destruction of the fence, but denied any malicious conduct. The factual issues framed by the pleadings
were submitted to a jury on special interrogatories. The jury found for the plaintiffs, assessing compensatory damages of
$1,500 for forage destroyed by the sheep trespassing, $100 for forage destroyed by bulldozing the road, $75 for costs of repairing
a fence damaged by the bulldozing, plus $5,000 as punitive damages solely for the bulldozing incident. After judgment was
entered in conformity with the special verdict, defendant moved to amend the judgment notwithstanding the special findings
by the jury. This motion was denied by the court. The defendant appealed from the judgment based on the special findings by the jury and from the order denying his motion
to amend. The defendant's contentions are directed to the award of the punitive damages. He assigns as error the giving of
an instruction by the district court on punitive damages and submitting interrogatories on punitive damages to the jury. He
asserts that the record fails to show such conduct by the defendant as would entitle the jury to consider any issue of punitive
damages. The defendant also assigns as error the refusal of the court to either amend the judgment by striking the punitive
damages, or in the alternative, failure of the court to reduce the punitive damages.
 "Clinton Cox and Roger D. Cox v. Lloyd" by Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10906 ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}