The infringement of rights given by stat ute; Sharp v. Curtiss, 15 Conn. 526; Riddle v. Proprietors of Locks and Canals, 7 Mass. 169, 5 Am. Dec. 35; Savings Inst. v. Makin, 23 Me. 371; Hunt v. Town of Pownal, 9 Vt. 411; Hull v. Richmond, 2 Woodb. & M. 337, Fed. Cas. No. 6,861.
Injuries committed to property of which the plaintiff has the reversion only; Ashley v. Ashley, 4 Gray (Mass.) 197; Noyes v. Still man, 24 Conn. 15; Hall v. Snowhill, 14 N. J. L 8; Campbell v. Arnold, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 511; Hilliard v. Dortch, 10 N. C. 246; liams v. Lanier, 44 N. C. 30; McGowen v. Chapen, 6 N. C. 61; Elliot v. Smith, 2 N. H. 430; Ives v. Cress, 5 Pa. 118, 47 Am. Dec. 401; Short v. Piper, 4 Harr. (Del.) 181; Kidder v. Jennison, 21 Vt. 108; Beavers v. Trimmer, 25 N. J. L. 97; Tinsman v. R. Co., 25 N. J. L. 255, 64 Am. Dec. 415; Files v. Magoon, 41 Me. 104; as where property is in the hands of a bailee for hire; 3 East 593; Hilliard v. Dortch, 10 N. C. 246; Haw kins v. Phythian, 8 B. Monr. (Ky.) 515; also where grantor destroys an unrecorded deed placed in his hands for safekeeping by the grantee; Edwards v. Dickinson, 102 N. C. 519, 9 S. E. 456.
As to the effect of intention, as ing case from trespass, see Bell v. Lakin, 1 McMull. (S. C.) 364; Schuer v. Veeder, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 342; Vandenburgh v. Truax, 4, Den. (N. Y.) 464, 47 Am. Dec. 268; Schune man v. Palmer, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 225; Kelly v. Lett, 35 N. C. 50; Moore v. Appleton, 26 Ala. 633. In some states the distinction is expressly abolished by statute; Welch v. Whittemore, 25 Me. 86; Hines v. Kinnison, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 119; Luttrell v. Hazen, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 20; Schultz v. Frank, 1 Wis. 352.
The declaration must not state the injury to have been committed vi et armis; Gates v. Miles, 3 Conn. 64 [yet after verdict the
words vi et armis (with force and arms) may be rejected as surplusage ; White v. Marshall, Harp. (S. C.) 122]; and should not conclude contra pacem; Corn. Dig. Action on the Case (0) 3).
Damages not resulting necessarily from the acts complained of must be specially stated; Rowand v. Bellinger, 3 Strobh. (S. C.) 373; Swan v. Tappan, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 104; Morris v. MeCamey, 9 Ga. 160; Hall v. Kitson, 4 Chandl. (Wis.) 20. Evidence which shows the injury to be trespass will not support case; Dillingham v. Snow, 5 Mass. 560; Burdick v. Worrall, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 596; Scott v. Bay, 3 Md. 431.
The plea of not guilty raises the general issue; Hellion v. Morton, 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 150. Under this plea almost any matter may be given in evidence, except the statute of lim itations; the rule is modified in actions for slander and a few other instances; 1 Wms. Saund. 130.
The Judgment is that the plaintiff recover a sum of money ascertained by a jury for his damages sustained by the commission_ of the grievances complained of in the dec laration; Cox v. Skeen, 24 N. C. 221, 38 Am. Dec. 691; Burdick v. Glasko, 18 Conn. 494; with costs. See Act. & Def. ch. xxxiv., as to cases in which this action will lie.
"Case or controversy," as used in the ju diciary act, imply the existence of present or possible adverse parties whose conten tions are submitted to the court for adjudi cation; Muskrat v. U. S., 219 U. S. 346, 31 Sup.. Ct. 250, 55 L. Ed. 246.
Cases, in the title of an old law book, may mean moot cases or questions put by the author for the consideration of the reader ; e. g., Stillingfleet's "Ecclesiastical Cases . . . Stated and Resolved," 1698-1704.