Chrestman v. Russell
Chrestman v. Russell
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
In no conceivable state of case could instruction numbered one, for plaintiff, be correct. Section 1068 of the code of 1892, was never intended to embrace any indebtedness of the ‘ ‘ laborer or renter ’ ’ to the landlord. Its scope is to secure to the landlord or employer double the damages he may have sustained by reason of such laborer or renter having been so enticed away, etc., the word £ ‘ damage ’ ’ here not being used to embrace ‘ ‘ debts ’ ’ in the ordinary sense of that word. It is not a statute for the collection of debts, but for securing to the landlord or employer double all the damage he may have
Reversed and remanded.'
Reference
- Full Case Name
- S. J. Chrestman v. P. B. Russell
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Employer or Landlord. Laborer or renter. Enticing away. Debts due to employer or landlord not within the statute allowing double damages. Code 1893, $ 1068. Debts due by a laborer or renter to his employer or landlord are not recoverable as damages under the statute making any person who entices away a laborer or renter, before the expiration of the specified time for which he has contracted, liable to the employer or landlord in double the amount of damages which he may have sustained by reason thereof ($ 1068, code 1893); and, in a proceeding to enforce liability under the statute, it is erroneous to instruct the jury that the defendant is liable for all the indebtedness of the laborer or renter to his employer or landlord, growing out of the contract between them. 3. Instructions. No bill of exceptions. Effect of its absence. In the absence of a bill of exceptions disclosing the evidence in an action at law, the appellate court will only pass upon such of the instructions complained of as are necessarily erroneous in any state of case.