Maye v. Tappan

23 Cal. 306 (1863)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Maye (P) and Tappan (D) owned adjoining mining claims. Neither willfully nor intentionally, but in ignorance of the dividing line, D worked a part of the mining land owned by P. P objected to all evidence showing that D was ignorant. The Court overruled the objection and allowed several Ds to testify to those facts. The jury found for P. P received damages of $50, but was not entitled to vindictive or exemplary damages. P appealed, claiming that he was due more damages and from an order refusing a new trial.