Case ID: scl_45/html/0193-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MuNRO, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Morgan C. Connor vs. Thomas Hillier.
    
      Trover for Certificate of Bank Stock — Damages.,
    In trover, for a certificate of shares in Bank Stock, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full value of the shares.
    BEFORE MUNRO, J., AT CHARLESTON, JUNE TERM,'1857.
    "Tbe report of bis Honor, tbe Presiding Judge, is as follows:—
    “ Tbis was an action of trover, brought by tbe plaintiff to recover tbe value of a certificate of two old shares in tbe Bank of Charleston.
    “ The case was upon tbe inquiry docket, and Mr. Thomas J. Sbingler, tbe only witness examined, proved that, as tbe agent of tbe plaintiff’ be called upon tbe defendant, and demanded tbe delivery to him of tbe certificate of stock in tbe name of tbe plaintiff, and that it was refused. He also proved, that at tbe date of tbe demand, tbe shares in tbe said Bank were worth one hundred and twelve dollars each, and •that tbe plaintiff was unable to sell or to transfer tbe shares, in consequence of tbe refusal of tbe defendant to deliver tbe certificate. On tbe cross-examination of tbis witness by Mr. Campbell, be stated that tbe defendant urged, as a reason for tbe non-delivery to him of tbe certificate, that be bad advanced monéy on tbe same to one DeGaffarelly, but there was no evidence showing bow DeGaffarelly came into possession of it, or what was bis authority to loan money upon it or that tbe plaintiff to whom tbe certificate belonged knew any thing of tbe loan.
    
      “ I charged tbe jury, that in consequence of tbe default of tbe defendant in not pleading to tbe action, tbe title and conversion were admitted, and that tbe only question left for them was wbat amount of damages tbe plaintiff ought to recover; and that upon this point tbe only evidence before them was that of Mr. Shingler, who valued tbe shares at one hundred and twelve dollars each.
    “ Tbe jury found a verdict for tbe plaintiff of twenty-five dollars.”
    . Tbe plaintiff appealed, and now moved this Court for a new trial, on tbe grounds:—
    1. Because it was distinctly proved by Mr. Shingler, tbe only -witness examined in tbe case, that tbe shares in tbe Bank of Charleston, for which tbe action was brought, were worth one hundred and twelve dollars each, and that in'consequence of the detention by tbe defendant of tbe certificate therefor issued, (in tbe name of tbe plaintiff,) be, tbe said plaintiff, was deprived of bis right of sale and transfer of tbe said two shares, and in consequence of bis absolute property therein.
    2. Because the' effect of tbe verdict will be to transfer tbe property in tbe-said two shares in tbe Bank of Charleston to tbe defendant for tbe sum of twenty-five dollars, when they are worth, -according to tbe only proof offered, two hundred and twenty-four dollars.
    3. Because tbe verdict of tbe jury was capricious, wholly against the evidence, and tbe express charge of .bis Honor tbe Presiding Judge.
    
      Buist, for appellant.
    
      Campbell, contra.
   Tbe opinion of the Court was delivered by

MuNRO, J.

Whether the finding of the jury was in reference to the mere value of the paper upon which the certificate was written, or to the estimated value of the shares represented by it, this verdict is so palpably erroneous, that it cannot be permitted to stand. So that the question presented is, by what standard should they have been governed in estimating damages for the conversion of such an instrument ?

It is a well established doctrine, that trover lies for the recovery of a chose in action, such as a bill, note, or bond, and that the rule for estimating the damages is, the amount which the instrument calls for upon its face. (Sedgw. on Dam., 512.) In other words, whenever the instrument is an available security for the amount claimed, the party is entitled to recover the full amount. In reference to the conversion of .muniments of title, the rule is thus stated by Mayne, in his Treatise on Damages, p. 210. “ In trover for title deeds, the jury may give the full value of the estate to which they bélong by way of damages, which, however, are generally reduced to forty shillings, on the deed being given up.” In Parry vs. Frame, 2 Bos. & Pul., 451, which was an action of trover for a lease, the plaintiff recovered the full value of the lease. In Clowes vs. Hawley, 12 Johns. R. 484, the action was by the assignee of a bond t'o make titles against the defendant by whom it had been converted, and it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover as damages the-value of the land.

Upon principle and authority, then, we are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full value of the bank shares, represented by the said certificate, so that a new trial must be granted; and it is so ordered.

Wardlaw, Withers, Whither, and Glover, JJ., concurred.

New trial ordered.