Jones v. Railway

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HEMINGWAY, J.
• Citation: Jones v. Railway, 53 Ark. 27, 13 S.W. 416 (Ark. 1890)
• Decision Date: 08 March 1890
• Parties: JONES v. RAILWAY

13 S.W. 416

53 Ark. 27

JONES v. RAILWAY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 8, 1890

APPEAL from White Circuit Court, M. T. SANDERS, Judge.

Jones sued the St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway Company for killing a colt in White county, valued at $ 1,000.00. Before the trial defendant moved to suppress certain parts of the depositions of witnesses who resided at Leslie, Michigan, tending to prove the value of the colt at that place. The testimony was excluded. Subsequently plaintiff showed that there was no adequate local market for such an animal at the place of killing. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 400.00. Plaintiff appealed alleging as error the exclusion of the above testimony.

Judgment affirmed.

W. R Coody for appellant.

The court erred in suppressing the depositions, as to the value of the colt in the market where there was demand and sale for such colts.

The measure of damages is the market value of the animal. 50 Ark 176-9. If there is no market value at the place where killed, then evidence is admissible of the market value at a place where there was a market value on such articles, less cost of transportation, etc. 2 Suth. on Dam., 273; 44 Me. 255; 1 Har. & G. (Md.), 444; 30 Me. 491; 7 N.H. 361; 12 Cal. 171; 13 Wall. 57; 14 Wall. 442; 23 Wall. 471.

All evidences tending to prove a circumstance bearing on a material fact in issue should be admitted. 29 Ark. 386.

Dodge & Johnson for appellee.

Evidence as to the value of stock in Michigan was properly excluded. 50 Ark. 179; 42 Ark. 122; 41 Ark. 157.

OPINION

HEMINGWAY, J.

For an injury to property the owner is entitled to be compensated by a recovery against the wrongdoer to the extent of his injury. If personal property be damaged to the extent of destruction, its owner may have compensation by a recovery of its value at the time and place of its destruction. The correct rule for measuring the damage is found in a statement of the right, and about it there is no room for difference. But difficulty in applying the rule in different cases has arisen in determining what evidence is competent to prove the value of property destroyed.

To establish value, as to prove other facts, the law requires the best evidence that can be had. In most cases this rule would require proof of value in the market at the time and place of the injury; for if the property was held for sale, this shows the extent of the loss in not being able to sell it; and if it was held for use, this shows what it would cost to replace it.

But while the principle which exacts the best evidence is general, what constitutes the best evidence varies with the circumstances of the different cases. There may have been in a particular case an injury to property of a kind not sold, and therefore without market value, at the place of injury; still, it had a value there, either for its utility or because it might be transported and sold at distant markets; and as all rules of evidence are adopted for practical purposes in the administration of justice, they should not preclude a recovery because a loss occurred at a place where there was no market for the particular kind of property. The law accomplishes no such result, but accords to the party injured the right to recover the amount of his loss, and exacts no more in proof of the amount, than the best evidence of which his case is susceptible. This implies that proof of the market price at other points may be admitted; but does it imply that proof may be admitted of the market price at any or all distant points at which there may be a market? This conclusion would be as unreasonable as that the absence of a local market should exclude all proof of value.

It would not be contended, that, in an action by a farmer in one of our western States for corn destroyed in his barn, it would be competent to prove the value of corn in Dublin; or that, in trover for furs converted in Alaska, it would be competent to prove the value of similar articles in Berlin or Rome. If such proof tended in some slight degree to establish value, other and better proof is in the nature of things to be had, tending more nearly and directly to that result.

As the aim of the law is in such cases to ascertain value, courts should not admit...