Lincoln Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Armes
Decision Date | 26 November 1926 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 520 |
Citation | 110 So. 818,215 Ala. 407 |
Parties | LINCOLN RESERVE LIFE INS. CO. v. ARMES. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Richard V. Evans Judge.
Action by Ethel Armes against the Lincoln Reserve Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
W.B Harrison and Thos. J. Judge, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
Lange Simpson & Brantley, of Birmingham, for appellee.
This is a suit by Ethel Armes against Lincoln Reserve Life Insurance Company, a corporation, for damages for the conversion by it of about 1,400 books, entitled "The Story of Coal and Iron in Alabama," the property of the plaintiff.
This cause was tried on count 2 for the conversion of this property. It was in code form. Defendant's plea was not guilty.
There was a judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict in her favor by a jury, and, from that judgment, this appeal is prosecuted by the defendant.
The plaintiff was owner and author of these books. They were stored in the basement of the Chamber of Commerce Building in Birmingham, prior to 1915. The book was written, compiled, and published in 1910 or 1911. There were originally 5,000 volumes. They were all sold except those involved in this suit and a few others. The defendant became the owner of this building in October, 1922, and took possession of it, and these books were still in the basement. They remained there in boxes until some time in February, 1924. There was evidence that they were injured while there by dampness caused from leaks, and there was evidence to the contrary.
The inspector of the city fire department came to the building, went into the basement, and informed the janitor of the defendant's building that this rubbish there, including these books in the boxes and other things therein, had to be cleaned out. The janitor of the defendant informed the president of the defendant of the instructions of the city inspector. The president told Mr. Roberts, the janitor, as testified to by the janitor, this:
The president testified as follows on this subject:
The evidence of the defendant tended to show that prior to this, in October, 1923, the president of the defendant was informed by the brother of the plaintiff that these books belonged to her. The president of defendant testified on this subject:
E.C. Armes, brother of the plaintiff, testified on this subject that this conversation with Mr. Stallings was in January or February, 1924, and that he said to Mr. Stallings:
Under our statute (section 7656 of the Code of 1923), direct testimony as to market value is in the nature of opinion evidence. One need not be an expert or dealer in the article, but may testify as to value, if he has had an opportunity for forming a correct opinion.
All of the witnesses who testified to the value of the books were shown to have had an opportunity for forming a correct opinion as to the market value of them. The court did not err in permitting these witnesses to testify that the reasonable market value of the books was $4 each wholesale; that retail price was $5 per volume, and how many were sold at that price; that, when an advertisement was on about them soon after they were published, many volumes were sold at retail for $5 each; that when they were not advertised only a few were sold annually; and that there was a demand for the books in February, 1924.
All of this tended to show to the jury the reasonable market value of the books at the time they were sold by the janitor of the defendant to the junk dealer at 40 cents per hundred pounds; and there was proof that the weight of the 1,300 books sold by the janitor was about 2,600 pounds. There was evidence tending to show these books were worth on the market, as junk, from 40 to 90 cents per hundred pounds.
This is an action for damages for conversion of the books, and the measure of damages recoverable under that count is the reasonable cash market value of the books at the time of the conversion, or at any time thereafter prior to the trial with interest. Sharpe v. Barney, 114 Ala. 361, 21 So. 490...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pollard v. Rogers
... ... v. Craft (Ala.Sup.) 174 So. 478; ... Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Brandon, 232 Ala. 265, ... 167 So. 723; ... be presented for review. The proper way to reserve an ... exception to a part of the court's oral charge is ... Co. v. Crick, 217 ... Ala. 547, 117 So. 167; Lincoln Reserve Life Ins. Co. v ... Armes, 215 Ala. 407, 110 So ... ...
-
Mattfeld v. Nester
..."guessing" (Burrowes v. Skibbe, 146 Or. 123, 29 P.2d 552); whether he swore to something he knew nothing about (Lincoln Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Armes, 215 Ala. 407, 110 So. 818); whether he considers himself as an expert as good a judge of the matter in dispute as other experts testifying ......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Russell
...Ry. Co. v. Morris, 143 Ala. 628, 42 So. 17; Alabama Power Co. v. Armour & Co., 207 Ala. 15, 92 So. 111; Lincoln Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Armes, 215 Ala. 407, 110 So. 818. In such cases it is considered that ownership itself renders the owner competent to testify as to its value. For the sam......
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Russell
... ... v. Armour & Co., 207 Ala. 15, 92 ... So. 111; Lincoln Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Armes, 215 ... Ala. 407, 110 So ... ...