The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1866-10-04

''s NNN'NN'""i nhu thc Nuluo az a subs
q, 29d - ~
Ia tlls state the precise question seems
nave mceiNed no consideration since ii
,aS''s oi ltiuds vssfefry Walk n II IA. an
ieNada vs., Camp, ID u 100. Ia thee,,seas,
u WAS held that tho yalueef the pFopert
~ tho time of the conversion. and iis yearl
Y Nalue' OF Interest from that date, is tile na.
suro Of damages
Ana thus seems 70 be the ancient rule 4
ri hagsand, Whaa No ralae remains fke sa,ae--a
6 money ~ kaes---and thcru Is no wilfnl tori
D In tho case III Fisher ~. Prince. art llurr
y irA3 On rulcte stay proceedings, II
N action ot ttoYer. ulhn the defendant, H.
HNsllhs np tlie piopariy ia contrnvarsy, ans
paying all costs, la Mansfield states III,
rule thus That WHOM ttover il hronrht Az
aspeciiie ohattel Of an ascertaindal uuantit,
aud quality, aud Unattended with any cir
onmstanccs, that can enhance the damages
above the real value, hat that its real and
hscertalned value must be the solo measure
OF damages then tho specific thing demand.
Ell, may be brought into court. Where there
- uncertainty, either in the quantity or
qualily OF the thing demanded. or there is
any tort accompanying. that may enhance
the damages above the real value of the
shing, and there is no rule whereby 10 esti.
lhate the additional value, then ID shall not
pc brought In, aud the court will not stay
proceedings on delivery of the thing sned
l"r but viii allow the plaintitf to proceed for
Special damages. The reason holds 10 every
pther ease, he adds, where the thing clearly
remains of the same value. Yet the Jury
may give damages for the detention
!, 20 IN whittier aud wife, administrix Of
Hunt vs.. Fuller, 2nd w. Black II D. gtr9
Y; ). DeGny, delivering the opinion Of the
whole court, held that in trover, il the
value of the thing be uncertain. or the plain.
w insists upon going for special damages,
we court WIZ not stay proceedings ON do
livery of the thing sued for aud costs.
); Anu 50 IL was held IN an anonymous ease
" LIST Strange X, D. ll2, where IL IL said
N troyer for money. the court rave leave III
bring the whole money declared for into
court But said they could do il only IN |
thls ease aud not ia trovrr for goods Cooke |
vs. liolgate Barnes, y. 2Si, and Rayden |
vs. batty Ill y, 2ei, are cited Ia a note 10 the |
Ease OF Written and wife VS. Fuller, 10 the
anne point--2nd w. Black. X. y. gO1.
IN lie ease OF Mercer W. Jones, Bird Camp,
10 LII. Ellcnboro, applied this rule, of the
'alne at the time of conversion and interest.
o an action Of trover for bills of exchange
sui IN Greeningvs Wilkinson /, Cow and
'ayne p 695, where troyer WIS brought for
:. India Co.. warrants for cotton, which hn4l
iseh IN value fran six pence per pound at
ne ule OF conversion 10 ten pence hnlfI
emmy. Abbott q, J. lid, Tenterden.) pro.
ouneed the ease Of Mercer VS. Jones, "bar,l. |
law" aud held that the amount of dam. =
pc ~ for the jnryNwho are not limited TO
ne price on the day of conversion but nny !
nd the value at that time or any subse. :
heht time ~ their discretion, because the !
intiffmight have had n good Opportunity q
selling the goods fthey had not been d. q
lined 0
In Shepherds Exr Va johnson. 2nd East 7
y, East 40, 2nd Ander Ed, by Whar. -
~, IN case of breach Of engagement 10 !.
'liFer stock--Gross J. said The true meas. Z,
g OF damages IN all these cases is, TINT =,
hich will completely indemnify tho plain =
for the breach OF the engagement Tile !,
oof N this case showed that ut the time Of =, =,
~, the stock was greatly enhanced In EN-
ine, and II was held that indemnity in -
rh case was the highest value, ms it stood -
the time Of trial aud this appears TO be- ~
. rule held by Id. Eldon In the ense az Y,
yne rs. Burke, decided in 1919, and cited -
Mr.. East IN note 10 the case above
Oted nc
n the case Of Macarthur vs. Seaforth, I'd pr
hD Z@1 which was a writ of inquiry TO Y.
ess damages on "a bond conditioned for re- TIN
cling stock, Lord Mansfield held, that the tig
lgee was not entitled 10 special damages TIN
o proht he might have made ii il had VIZ
u sooner replaced, unless he shows that . y
actually would have made IL and the rel
iAure of damages in this case il stated ia "
-thc price oftLe stock on the day when qu'
nght TO have been replaced, or the price by
ue day OF trial, at the option of plaintiff. cor
not the highest price az any inter,ne- agl
e day. VIII
Is TO be remarked. however, that this ~, w
seems IN reference to "the highest price H.. ~
ny intermediate day." TO rest on ifs pe ~. ~,
AZ FACTS. Lord Mansfield i'm speaking of enh
claim for damages says, call his (plain. .ae'
letters require nothing more than TO be vi ".
on at par No application il made to l'l'l
defendant, at the time when the reduced :,
iItics are at the highest price the plain I'm
ioes not say pay me now, for can in = a,'r \
II adYantageously and shall call on -
TO pay the difference, IL do not. anlo
ets the time pass by and he afterwards ann ~,
. what The could have done" Ia
mes VS.. Back, J Stark, cas9s .. 3Is- pinh
EienbOfOugh allowed the value on the s.lao
Of trial, 2d Eng. Com. Law r. u. 407. C"ni
Harrison vs.. Harrison, Carr a. Payne. guag
q which was writ Of enquiry 10 assess , m'.o1
yes on bond to replace stock, the I'm gp,,.
ion was as 10 tbs day on which the .,'s's
OF stock should be taken IN order to ny" y,
late the amount u damages, C. j Best ~
Il think the fair rule Is to take the neeh
Jngfiee AZ ~ 49, - Ist
lace the plaintiff Ia the same situation ~ !,
iei he would have been. IL the stock li ~,
cen replaced at the stipulated time" .t'hei
argument for the plaintiff was that tne ~
}lect Of the bond, being 10 ensHre the piol,e
IN Ne saHs quantity Of stock: il Il ne stisin
y, that he should recover as much .lsie'
J from the defendant as would secure RUE o
nrchase Of the stoc4 at the time Of ~
eeovery-while the defendant insisted oo III.
= value az the time Of the breach was , ,,
4 role Of damages. G. j. Best agree she ~
~ The former view, directed daniaees ~ -
ling % the price Of TIE day previous to ~
ecuti0n 81 tine writ Of enquiry tne ~
,uniap ". Higgins. J II. Ids cases. 'u ~,
=, cited by Mr. Parsons in bis law of iha
cts, vol. n p. 2g6. note (e.) Lord eHi5fa
ellor Cottenham, j. reported 70 have is IN .s.
rat the increased value or the profit % US
ould have been received. il the marty snti,y
rinnned his contract, j. the true mea- ssai.hf
damages, in an action for n breach IT, =. ~
omise - deliver specific clattels on lbal
lay. may b
sedgewick, p. 80. speaking Of the or wbe
England, says. II We adhere 10 the The mi
y 81 stock contracts, ~ decided thefe usaffio
the value 0f ehattels il fluctnafing. ofpIaif
2 ought 20 BE- the highest ralue BE- 81, or
he conversion aud the trial. And aueuf
ANS appears 10 be the rule ia New GREATER
time of