EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. In Prac tice. Damages allowed as a punishment for tints committed with fraud, actual malice, or deliberate violence or oppression.
2. The principle appears to be now well es tablished in nearly alIthe states of the Union, though it is denied in some, that in actions for torts strictly so called, where gross fraud, or actual malice, or deliberate violence or op pression appears, the jury are not confined to a strict compensation for the plaintiff's loss, but may, in assessing damages, allow a sum as a punishment of the defendant for his wrong committed upon the plaintiff. Such an allow ance is termed "smart-money," or "exem plary," " vindictive," or " punitive" damages. They are assessed in one sum, with any allow ance the jury may think proper to make as com pensation for the actual loss sustained ; and the whole sum is awarded to the injured party, The propriety of allowing damages to be given by way of punishment under any cir. cumstances has been strenuously denied in many of the cases, and the question has given rise to extensive discussion ; but the weight of authority is decidedly that such allowance, in a suitable case, is proper. Ac tions of libel, assault and battery, seduction, false imprisonment, and the like, are those in which this principle is most frequently in voked. To trace the discussion of this subject, consult 13 Ala. N. s. 490 ; 27 id. 678 ; 28 id. 236 ; 15 Ark. 452; 3 Day, Conn. 447 ; 6 Conn. 508., 7 id. 274 ; 10 id. 384 ; 15 id. 225, 267 ; 4 Ill. 373; 7 id. 432; 16 id. 283; 5 Ind. 322 ; 13
B. Monr. Ky. 219 ; 17 id. 101; 2 Mart. La. 257 ; 7 La. Ann. 447 ; 11 id. 292 ; 3 Mass. 546 ; 10 id. 459 ; 15 Pick. Mass. 297 ; 21 id. 378 ; 4 Cush. Mass. 273 ; 27 Miss. 68 ; 14 Mo. 104 ; 21 id. 289 ; 10 N. H. 130 ; 3 Barb: N. Y. 42, 651 ; 4 Wend. N. Y. 113 ; 1 Abb. Pract. N. Y. 289 ; 1 N. Y. 18 ; 3 id. 191 ; 4 id. 452 ; 11 id. 356 ; Busb. No. C. 395 ; 6 Watts & S. Penn. 150 ; 5 Watts, Penn. 375 •, 20 Penn. St. 85, 354; 23 id. 424, 523 ; 3 Strobh. So. C. 425 • 4 id. 34; 8 Rich. So. C. 144 • 2 Sneed, Tenn. 456 ; 2 Tex. 460 ; 5 id. 141 ; 9 id. 358 ; 12 id. 297. 3 Wisc. 424 ; 4 id. 67; 1 Cranch, C. C. 187; 1 Wash. C. C. 152; Wall. Jr. C. C. 164; 2 Mas. C. C. 120 ; 3 Stor. C. C. 1; 3 Wheat. 546 ; 10 Pet. 81; 13 How. 363, 447 ; 16 id. 480 ; 2 Wils. 205 ; 3 id. 18 ; 5 Sauna. 442 ; 2 Stark. 282 ; 5 Carr. & P. 372 ; 13 Mees. & W. Exch. 47 ; 3 Am. Jur. 387 ; 9 Bost. Law Rep. 529; 10 rd. 49 ; 2 Greenleaf, Ev. 0 253 ; 1 Kent, Comm. 10th ed. 630, n.
3. In some of the above cases, a qualifica tion of the rule allowing exemplary damages has been asserted ; viz., that they should be carefully denied whenever the defendant is criminally liable to punishment for the wrong done, by indictment and fine or otherwise. 4 Cush. Mass. 273 ; 5 Ind. 322. But compare 6 Tex. 266. 1 Cal. 54; 18 Mo. 71 ; 1 Abb. Pract. N. Y. 289 ; 4 Du. N. Y. 247 ; 5 Taunt. 442 ; 2 Stark. 282 ; 13 Mees. & W. Exch. 47; 1 Murr. Sc. 15, 317, 428.