
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, CHARLESTON,
    JAN., 1810.
    Daniel J. Cook v. Martha Cook.
    A recovery in trover is a bar to an action of assumpsit, for the services rendered by slaves, for the conversion qf which the action of trover was brought.
    In trover, if the plaintiff goes for a conversion of slaves, capable of rendering valuable service to the possessor, he ought to claim a compensation, or damages in lieu thereof, for such services during the ■conversion; and he shall not be allowed to recover in another form of action damages for such services, which he might have obtained satisfaction for in the action of trover.
    Motion for a new trial. Assumpsit, for the work and labor of ■certain negro slaves, tried before Brevard, J,, in the District Court of Beaufort, in November, 1807. It was stated to the District Court, that an action of trover had been brought, prior to the •commencement of the present action, for the conversion of the «ame negro slaves, in which the plaintiff recovered damages ; and Shat in that action the value of the property only was allowed by 
      ^ie ver^i°b and not a compensation for the services of the negroes during the time they were in the possession of the defendant. It was submitted to the District Court, as a question of law, whether a recovery in trover could be legally pleaded in bar to an action of assumpsit ; and the presiding judge being of opinion that it was a good bar, a verdict was taken for the defendant. It was understood by the court, that the action of assumpsit was brought to recover upon an implied contract, a satisfaction for the labor and services of the same negroes, for the conversion of whom the action of trover had been brought, and for the time they were illegally converted ; but it was also understood that the plaintiff denied he had given any evidence of the services of the negroes. It was stated on his part, that he had only given evidence of the value of the property converted, and not any evidence of the use of such property, or the value of such use, or value of the services of the negroes during the period of their conversion. No evidence, however, was offered to shew that the cause of action in the present case had been considered in the action, or the contrary ; but it was propounded as an abstract question of law, by the agreement of counsel, as the court understood it, whether the damages recovered in trover could be pleaded in bar to the action of assumpsit.
    The motion for a new trial was argued the 3d January, 1809, before all the judges, by Cheves, for the plaintiff, and Dhavtoh, for the defendant.
    For the plaintiff, it was contended, that the damages recovered in an action of trover, although pleadable in bar to an action of assumpsit, are no bar to the action, unless specially pleaded, and proved to be in satisfaction of the same cause of action ; and that in this case the defendant did not prove that damages were recovered in the action of trover for the use and services of the slaves in question, while unlawfully converted by the defendant. And further, that in trover, the value of the property at the time of the conversion, is the rule for estimating the damages, and not any subsequent profit-derived from that conversion.
    On the part of the defendant it was answered, that in this State, the practice has obtained of taking verdicts for plaintiffs, for a much greater sum than the value of the thing converted, with a condition, that on the delivery up of the thing to the plaintiff, together with a small sum for damages for the conversion, the verdict shall be released; and that where such verdicts are taken, the recovery in trover must certainly operate as a bar to any subsequent action for the use or services of the property ■ during the time such property was in the possession of the defendant, and that in every case of a recovery in trover, it is presumable the plaintiff recovers not only the value of the thing, for the conversion of which the action is brought, but also damages, for the unlawful conversion, or use, including the services of the thing, if it be capable of rendering service ; and that it would answer no good purpose to allow evidence to be adduced in any other form of action, to prove that such services were not computed, or taken into consideration in the former verdict; but on the contrary, that it would be opening a door to unnecessary litigation.
    Cheves, in reply.
    The correct rule for the estimation of damages for the unlawful conversion of a chattel, is the value of that chattel. It would be unjust to give more, unless it be for the tor-tious taking. If the plaintiff recovers the value of his chattel, what moré can he fairly ask? He ought not to have compensation for the services of such property, or use of it, superadded to its value.
    
      Curia advisare vult.
    
   January 13, 1810.

Smith, J.,

delivered the unanimous opinion of the court. In an action of trover, the plaintiff recovers damages for the unlawful conversion of his property. The value of the property alone is not the correct rule in the estimation of damages. The value of the property is generally considered along with the circumstances attending the conversion. If after the conversion the thing converted is restored to the plaintiff, or comes again into his possession, damages are not given for the value of the thing, but only for the conversion of the thing; and in order to apportion the satisfaction to the injury, the value of the thing converted must necessarily be considered. Where the thing is not restored to the owner, and he does not regain possession of it, the value of such thing is always considered in the verdict for damages ; but in addition to the value of the thing, damages are also generally allowed,- and ought to be allowed for the unlawful conversion. If the thing be useful to the tortfeasor, he ought to answer to the plaintiff for such use. If the conversion be attended by acts of violence, alarm, and-outrage, the damages are usually increased on that account.

It is for the interest of society that there should be as little litigation as is consistent with the due administration of justice. In all cases fvhere a plaintiff sues for damages for the conversion ol a useful animal, and recovers, he may recover damages for the ser* vices of such animal, as well as for its value ; and he ought not to omit claiming such damages and giving evidence to support such claim. If he does go, it should be attributed to 'his own folly or neglect; and he ought not to be permitted to bring another action to recover for such services, if he might have recovered satisfaction for them in the former action. It is good policy to discourage the multiplication of suits;

Motion rejected.

Present, Bay, Waties, Brevard, Wilds, and Smith, Justices. Gkimke, J., absent, sick.  