Motton v. Smith
| Decision Date | 17 March 1905 |
| Citation | 60 A. 681,27 R.I. 57 |
| Parties | MOTTON v. SMITH. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Claim by Henrietta C. Motton against the estate of William H. Smith's testatrix. New trial granted the executor.
Argued before DOUGLAS, C. J., and DUBOIS and BLODGETT, JJ.
George T. Brown, for appellant. Van Slyck & Mumford, for appellee.
A considerable part of the plaintiff's claim was for certain articles of jewelry which she said the defendant's testatrix had taken from her and never returned. She was allowed to state, against the defendant's objection, the value of these articles—amongst others, two diamond rings, one a gift to her father and the other an heirloom in the family, which she testified were worth $100 each; a pearl and emerald ring, which she said was worth $75; a pair of gold bracelets, $10; pearl opera glasses, $10; locket and chain, $15. The witness was not shown to have any knowledge of the value of such articles, but her estimate of their value was admitted because she claimed to have been the owner of them. This was manifest error. The exact question arose in Gregory v. Fichtner, 27 Abb. N. C. 86, 34 N. Y. Supp. 891. A witness had been allowed by the trial court to state the value of jewelry which she claimed had been converted by the defendant's testator. The court (Pryor, J.) says: . And the court, for this and other errors, granted a new trial. See, also, Campbell v. Campbell, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 381; Berg v. Spink, 24 Minn. 138; Allen v. Kirk, 81 Iowa, 658, 47 N. W. 906; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Copeland, 24 Ill. 332, 76 Am. Dec. 749; Buffum v. N. Y. & B. R. R. Co., 4 R. I. 221; Brown v. Prov. & Springfield R. R. Co., 12 R. I. 238. The defendant's exception to the admission of this testimony must be sustained. Inasmuch as a new trial must be granted upon this ground, we express no opinion as to the weight of the evidence or the newly discovered evidence which the defendant may introduce at the next trial.
A new trial is granted, and the case will be remanded to the common pleas division for further proceedings.
On Motion for Rehearing.
The plaintiff moves for a reargument of the case on the ground that the plaintiff's testimony to the value of the jewelry was properly admitted. We did not attempt to lay down a general rule upon the subject. To do so would be difficult, if not impossible, further than to say that some knowledge of value is a necessary qualification in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carnego v. Crescent Coal Co.
... ... what he afterwards sold her for was admitted as an aid to the ... jury in assessing damages ... In ... Motton v. Smith, 27 R.I. 57 (60 A. 681, 8 Ann. Cas ... 831), the court observed that "an owner is doubtless ... usually qualified to state the cost price ... ...
-
Van Horn v. Swezey
...N.W. 226 (owner's value of her lost diamonds must be received); see also Pettit v. Kilby, 232 Ark. 993, 342 S.W.2d 93; cf. Motton v. Smith, 27 R.I. 57, 60 A. 681, rehearing denied, 27 R.I. 62, 60 A. 681; Gregory v. Fichtner, C.P.N.Y., 14 N.Y.S. 891. The defendants' exception to the admissio......
-
Carnego v. Crescent Coal Co.
...gave for a slave and what he afterwards sold her for was admitted as an aid to the jury in assessing damages. In Motton v. Smith, 27 R. I. 57, 60 Atl. 681, 8 Ann. Cas. 831, the court observed that “an owner is doubtless usually qualified to state the cost price of articles of personal prope......
-
DeSpirito v. Bristol County Water Co.
...Storage & Transfer Co., 223 Pa. 148, 72 A. 516, 21 L.R.A.N.S., 188; McMahon v. City of Dubuque, 107 Iowa 62, 77 N.W. 517. See Motton v. Smith, 27 R.I. 62, 60 A. 681. The defendant further contends that plaintiff, by reason of a lack of expertise, was not competent to testify to the cost of ......