Case Name: Martin Reed, Resp't, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburgh R. R. Co., App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-04
Citations: 16 N.Y. St. Rep. 58
Docket Number: 
Parties: Martin Reed, Resp’t, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburgh R. R. Co., App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 16
Pages: 58–58

Head Matter:
Martin Reed, Resp’t, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburgh R. R. Co., App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department,
Filed April, 1888.)
Evidence—Admissibility.
On the trial of an action for an injury to a trotting mare which ocurred while she was being transported by the defendant company,the plaintiff was permitted to prove by the opinion of witnesses the value of the mare, both before and after her injury; also, her speed and her value, assuming that she possessed the speed proved. Held, not error. That the evidence was admissible.
This was an appeal from a judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial. The judgment was entered on the verdict of a jury rendered at the Jefferson county circuit, and was for $2,347.54, damages and costs.
Edmund B. Wynn, for app’lt; W. F. Porter, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Martin, J.
This action was for an injury to a trotting mare owned by the plaintiff. The defendant was a common carrier, and the injury occurred while it was transporting the mare from Rome to Mansville. The evidence was clearly sufficient to justify a recovery by the plaintiff. Clarke v. R. and S. R. R. Co., 14 N. Y., 570; Merritt v. Earle, 29 id., 115; Mynard v. S. B. and N. Y. R. R. Co., 71 id., 180.
On the trial, the plaintiff was permitted to prove by the opinion of witnesses the value of the mare, both before and after her injury. The court also permitted him to prove her speed and her value, assuming that she possessed the speed proved. To the admission of this evidence the defendant excepted. The case of Miller v. Smith (112 Mass., 470), was very similar to the case at bar, and it was there held that such evidence was admissible. See, also Clark v. Baird, 9 N. Y., 183; Joy v. Hopkins, 5 Denio, 84; Jackson v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 2 T. & C., 653; S. C., 58 N. Y , 623; Whiton v. Snyder, 88 id., 300, 308. We think the authorities cited fully justify the rulings of the learned trial judge, and that the defendant's exceptions were not well taken.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Hardin, P. J., and Follett, J., concur.