Case ID: ny_58/html/0660-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John H. Harris, Respondent, v. The Panama Railroad Company, Appellant.
    (Argued June 10, 1874;
    decided September 22, 1874.)
    This action was brought to recover damages for the killing of a race-horse while being transported upon defendant’s road, across the Isthmus of Panama, through the alleged negligence of defendant.
    Upon the trial evidence was given tending to show that, while the horse could have been sold for some price, there was no market-price, properly speaking, for such a horse on the Isthmus. Plaintiff offered, and was allowed, to prove that the route over the Isthmus was part of a usual route to California, which was the destination of the horse in question, and also to prove the market value at San Francisco. The court instructed the jury, that they were to use the proof submitted to enable them to answer the question of the value at the time and place of the injury. Held, no error; that where there is a market-price or value at the time.and place that is the most suitable means of ascertaining value, but not the only one (Muller v. Eno, 14 N. T., 597, 607, 608 ; Parks v. Morris Ax and Tool Go., 54 id., 593); but that this species of evidence could only be completely reliable where it appears that similar articles have been bought and' sold, in the way of trade, in sufficient quantity or often enough to show a market value; and in the absence of such proof, proof of such value at some other place was admissible; in which case the place of destination was the most natural resort to supply the needed proof; it being resorted to, however, only to enable the jury to answer the inquiry as to the value at the place of the actual loss, great deduction being made for the risk and expense of further transportations.
    Plaintiff was allowed to ask several witnesses, who had testified to an extensive acquaintance with horses, as to the breed or stock of the horse. They answered that he was of the Sir Archie breed and a Sir Archie horse. Ro proof was given that there ever was such a horse as Sir Archie, or about the Sir Archie breed. Held, that the evidence was proper as it did not appear that the witnesses were asked on this subject any question which they may not have been able to answer of their own knowedge; and that it was for defendant, upon cross-examination, to show that the answers given were not supported by a sufficient basis of knowledge.
    
      D. B. Eaton for the appellant.
    
      Benj. M. Stilwell for the respondent.
   Johnson, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.