Glennon v. Travelers Demnity Co.
| Decision Date | 15 September 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 1247.,1247. |
| Citation | 91 A.2d 210 |
| Parties | GLENNON v. TRAVELERS IN DEMNITY CO. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Allan C. Swingle, Washington, D. C. (Edwin A. Swingle and Ernest A. Swingle, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Plaintiff was a residence employee of one Hill to whom defendant insurance company had issued a "Residence and Outside Theft Policy," providing insurance to the insured and his residence employees against loss by theft, including mysterious disappearance, of personal property. A ring belonging to plaintiff was stolen, or mysteriously disappeared, and she sued to recover its value, claiming $2,000 therefor.
At trial plaintiff testified that the ring was a lady's dinner ring, containing nineteen diamonds in a platinum setting; that one of the diamonds weighed approximately 68 points or 68/100 of a carat and it was surrounded by eighteen smaller diamonds weighing approximately 5 points each or a total of 90 points; that the ring had been given to her about twenty years before and she did not know its cost; that her knowledge of the weight of the diamonds was obtained from a description given her by a loan society in New York to whom she had once pledged the ring for a loan of $50, which was all she had requested; that the loan society had described the ring as containing "One diamond weighing approximately 68 points and 18 diamonds totaling approximately 90 points," but had made no statement as to the value or quality of the diamonds. Plaintiff further testified she had no expert knowledge of diamonds and had never bought or sold one.
Plaintiff was asked to give her opinion as owner of the value of the ring. Defendant objected to the question and the objection was sustained.
A witness for plaintiff, who qualified as an expert on gems and jewelry, testified he had never seen the ring in question and could not testify to the value of a ring based solely on the number of diamonds or number of carats or points in the ring, because the value of diamonds of equal carats varies from $50 to thousands of dollars, and the quality, color, and presence or absence of flaws must be taken into consideration before value can be determined. He was asked to state his opinion of the value of plaintiff's ring basing his opinion on the description given by plaintiff. Defendant objected to the question and the objection was sustained. The witness was, however, allowed to testify that the value of the mounting of the ring as described by plaintiff, without the diamonds, was $250.
Defendant offered no evidence and the court, sitting without a jury, stated that there was no evidence of value upon which could be based a finding of more than $300. Finding and judgment for plaintiff in that amount were entered.
Plaintiff has appealed, asserting that it was error not to allow her and her expert witness to give their opinions as to the value of the ring.
In Yonan Rug Service v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, D.C.Mun.App., 69 A.2d 62, 63, a case involving the value of lost Oriental rugs, we said:
In that case we pointed out that the rule stated has special application in cases of lost or destroyed household goods and wearing apparel, but the rule is not limited to cases of that sort. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hammond
...an expert), Rankin held that an owner was permitted to testify to the value of his 2 diamond rings. Glennon v. Travelers Indemnity Co., Mun.Ct.App.D.C., 91 A.2d 210, 37 A.L.R.2d 964 (1952) (ownership of diamond ring entitled plaintiff to give her estimate of value); Lewis v. State, 165 Ala.......
-
Bancroft v. Smith
...v. Union Pacific R. Co., 62 Idaho 58, 108 P.2d 841. The witness should have been permitted to answer. Glennon v. Travelers Indemnity Co., D.C.Mun.App., 91 A.2d 210, 37 A.L.R.2d 964. On the issue of damage the plaintiff testified: 'Q. What is your opinion, Mr. Bancroft, as to the value of th......
-
Fraklin Inv. Co., Inc. v. Smith
...value. Vaughan v. Spurgeon, D.C.App., 308 A.2d 236 (1973); Shea v. Fridley, D.C.Mun.App., 123 A.2d 358 (1956); Glennon v. Travelers Indemnity Co., D.C.Mun.App., 91 A.2d 210 (1952); Brooks Transp. Co. v. McCutcheon, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 406, 154 F.2d 841 3. Smith argues, for the first time on app......
-
State v. Wilson
...question incorporating a statement of facts." Sullivan v. Gibson, 39 Mont. 274, 279-80, 102 P. 320 (1909); Glennon v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 91 A.2d 210, 211 (D.C.Mun.App.1952). Whether the descriptions contained in the inventory are true representations of the jewelry in question or only......