NOMINAL DAMAGES. A trifling sum awarded where a breach of duty or an in fraction of the plaintiff's right is shown, but no serious loss is proved to have been sus tained.
Those awarded where, from the nature of the case, some injury has been done, the amount of which the proofs fail entirely tol show; Bellingham B. & B. C. R. Co. v. Strand, 4 Wash. 311, 30 Pac. 144.
Wherever any act injures another's right, and would be evidence in future in favor of a wrong-doer, an action may be sustained for an invasion of the right without proof of any specific injury; 1 Wms. Saund. 346 a; Bassett v. Mfg. Co., 28 N. H. 438; Chap man v. Mfg. Co., 13 Conn. 269, 33 Am. Dec. 401; and wherever the breach of an agree ment or the invasion of a right is establish ed, the law infers some damage, and if none is shown will award a trifling sum : as, a penny, one cent, six and a quarter cents, etc.; Burnap v. Wight, 14 Ill. 301; Sedgw. Dam. 47; Field, Damages § 860.
Thus, such damages may be awarded in actions for flowing lands ; Pastorius v. Fish er, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 27; Bassett v. Mfg. Co., 28 N. H. 438; injuries to commons; 2 East 154; violation of trade-marks; 4 B. & Ad. 410; infringement of patents ; Lee v. Pills bury, 49 Fed. 747; diversion of water-cours es; 5 B. & Ad. 1; Parker v. Griswold, 17 Conn. 288, 42 Am. Dec. 739; Tillotson v. Smith, 32 N. H. 90, 64 Am. Dec. 355; but see
Burden v. Mobile, 21 Ala. 309; McElroy v. Goble, 6 Ohio St. 187; trespass to lands ; Dixon v. Clow, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 188; Car ter v. Wallace, 2 Tex. 206; neglect of ME dal duties, in some cases; Goodnow v. Wil lard, 5 Metc. (Mass.) 517; Bruce v. Petten gill, 12 N. H. 341; breach of contracts; Hor ton v. Bauer, 129 N. Y. 148, 29 N. E. 1; Ex celsior Needle Co. v. Smith, 61 Conn. 56, 23 Atl. 693; Watts v. Weston, 62 Fed. 136, 10 C. C. A. 302 ; Dulaney v. Refining Co., 42 Mo. App. 659; when substantial damages have not been sustained; Stock Quotation Tel. Co. v. Board of Trade, 44 Ill. App. 358 ; and many other cases where the effect of the suit will be to determine a right; 12 Ad. & E. 488; Moulton v. Chapin, 28 Me. 505 ; Whitehead v. Ducker, 11 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 98;•Henry v. Banking Co., 89 Ga. 815, 15 S. E. 757; Weber v. Squier, 51 Mo. App. 601. And see, in explanation and limi tation; 10 B. & C. 145; 1 Q. B. 636; Paul v. Slason, 22 Vt. 231, 54 Am. Dec. 75; • Jen nings v. Loring, 5 Ind. 250.
The title or right is as firmly established as though the damages were substantial; Sedgw. Dam. 47. As to its effect upon costs, see id. 55; Ryder v. Hathaway, 2 Metc. (Mass.) 96.
See. DAMAGES ; MEASURE OF DAMAGES.