' Kansas City F. S. & M. R. Co. v. Little, 66 Kan. 378; 61 L. R. A. 122.
' Peterson v. W. U. Tel. Co., 75 Minn. 368; 43 L. R. A. 681.
» Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Eaden, 29 Ky. L. 365; 6 L. R. A.
(N. B.) 581.
• Kuhn V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. R. Co., 74 la. 137, 141 ; cf. Maxwell
V. Kennedy, 60 Wis. 646, 649.
nominal and exemplary damages. 93

Illustrations.
(o) A. brings an action against county commissioners to recover
damages for their wilful refusal to levy a tax to pay off a judgment
held by him. The plaintiff may recover exemplary damages,
though his actual damage was merely nominal.^

(b) The cause of action is unwarranted publication of an
author's manuscript. If wanton and reckless indifference to plain-
tiff's rights appears, exemplary damages may be given though no
actual damages be proved.^

(c) Under a statute giving a wife an action for damages to per-
son and property caused through the intoxication of her husband
by one who sells him liquor, the right of action depends on proof
of actual damage. In case no such proof is made, exemplary
damages are not recoverable.^

(d) The action is for assault. The extent of the actual dam-
age is not shown. This is no objection to a verdict, for exemplary
damages.*

Rule.
19. Upon the question of exemplary damages, all circuw/-
stances tending to show the nature of the motive are
receivable in evidence.^

Illustration.
