Massey v. Fain

Citation1 Ala.App. 424,55 So. 936
PartiesMASSEY v. FAIN.
Decision Date30 June 1911
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E. C. Crowe, Judge.

Action by Arthur W. Massey against J. W. Fain. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Henry Upson Sims, for appellant.

Vasser L. Allen, for appellee.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

This was an action in trover, and the evidence for the plaintiff established, if believed, the conversion by the defendant of a horse for which the defendant paid $225 when the conversion occurred. The plaintiff offered no evidence of the value of the horse other than the fact that when he demanded the animal of the defendant, the defendant refused to give up the horse, saying that he had paid $225 for the horse, and that the horse was worth that to him. Upon motion of the defendant, the court excluded all the evidence of the plaintiff, to which action of the court the plaintiff excepted. There was a judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.

It is manifest that the action of the court in excluding the evidence of the plaintiff was erroneous.

In actions of trover, where the plaintiff proves the wrongful conversion of his property by the defendant, but fails to prove that the property had any market value, the jury may nevertheless award him nominal damages. Joyce on Damages, §§ 1106, 1145; Drum v. Harrison, 83 Ala. 384, 3 So. 715.

The measure of the plaintiff's damages in an action of trover is prima facie the fair market value of the property at the time of the conversion and interest thereon from the date of the conversion to the day of the trial. Under certain conditions he may recover more than that amount. Boutwell v. Parker, 124 Ala. 341, 27 So. 309; Linam v Reeves, 68 Ala. 89; 4 Mayfield's Dig. p. 998, § 320.

In the present case, the court below excluded the evidence of the plaintiff because it was of the opinion that the price paid by the defendant for the horse was no evidence of the market value of the animal. We cannot consent to such a construction of our laws.

Evidence of recent actual sales in the same vicinity of similar articles of property to that in question may be admissible as evidence tending to establish the fair market value of the article in question. Sutherland on Damages, § 449.

Certainly, if recent sales of similar property in the same neighborhood may be looked to in ascertaining the fair market value of an article at a particular time, an actual, bona fide sale of the article the subject of the litigation on the day and at the place inquired about can be shown. In the case of Louisville Jeans Co. v Lischkoff, 109 Ala. 136, 19 So. 436, the Supreme Court says: "What the goods cost at some indefinite time in the past could not be fairly looked to as determining their present market value." And in the case of Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Main, 135 Ala. 451, 33 So. 480, the court said that evidence of what the plaintiff paid for the mule three months before the time the subject of inquiry and at a place different from the place the subject of inquiry was not admissible as evidence tending to establish the value of the mule at the time and place when it was killed by the defendant company. The reasoning of the Supreme Court in the above cases is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Howton v. Mathias
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 16, 1916
    ......Co. v. Tapia, 94 Ala. 226, 10 So. 236; Pruett v. Williams, 156 Ala. 346, 353, 47 So. 318; Boggan v. Bennett, 102 Ala. 400, 14 So. 742; Massey v. Fain, 1 Ala.App. 424, 55 So. 936; Field on Damages, §§. 796, 797. . . It has. long been the rule that the jury may award such ......
  • Phillips v. Pippen
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 1912
    ...... the article, the subject of the litigation, on the day and. place inquired about can be shown." Massey v. Fain,. 1 Ala. App. 424, 55 So. 936. . . 3. The. fact that Jones paid the $46.50 to the mortgagor on a written. order of the ......
  • Motor Sales Corporation v. Wisdom
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 12, 1923
    ...the litigation arose between those who were parties to the exchange, such as was presented to the Court of Appeals in Massey v. Fain, 1 Ala. App. 424, 55 So. 936. this argument of appellant assumes that at the time the testimony was being offered the pleadings presented only an issue as to ......
  • Stamps v. Thomas
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • April 17, 1913
    ...... testifying in a former trial of the case, was provable. against him as an admission of a fact pertinent to an issue. to be passed on. Massey v. Fain, 1 Ala.App. 424, 55. So. 936. It is argued that evidence of the statement then. made by the defendant should have been excluded because ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT