noting that "[n]ominal damages represent the award of a trifling sum where there has been a breach of duty ... but no real substantial or serious loss has been established"
How later courts described this case
- noting that "[n]ominal damages represent the award of a trifling sum where there has been a breach of duty ... but no real substantial or serious loss has been established"
- “[Wjhen nominal damages are awarded in our courts, one dollar shall be the measure thereof.”
- “A conversion is the deprivation of another’s right of property in, or use or possession of, a chattel, or other interference therewith, without the owner’s consent and without lawful justification.” (citation omitted)
- compiling federal cases holding the same
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen :
I concur with the major determination of the majority that the “refusal to admit appellant to the box was a willful interference with her right of possession of the contents and constituted an act of conversion” and that the lower court “erred in refusing appellant’s request for binding instructions.” But I disagree with the majority’s determination that even though there has been an invasion of appellant’s rights and a breach *456 of appellee’s duty, only nominal damages 1 should be awarded. As difficult as it may be to determine the actual damages suffered by appellant, not conceding that it cannot be determined, the landscape here is ideal for the award of consequential, exémplary or punitive damages. The assessment of damages in actions of conversion has always presented a difficult problem and we should not summarily foreclose ap: pellant from recovery, particularly since the problem was not litigated and we have not had the benefit of briefs or arguments from counsel. In addition, the determination by the majority that nominal damages is the only solution flies square into the face of its determination that the acts of the bank constituted “a willful interference with [appellant’s] right.”
I would hold that the record should be returned to the lower court so that the question of damages could be properly and thoroughly litigated. To that extent I dissent.
The majority’s citation of Blaekstone fails to indicate that the great commentator was speaking of damages pertaining to “Ouster of Chattels Beal” (ejectment), and commented “The damages recovered in these actions are now unusually inadequate, being a shilling or nominal sum.”