Case Name: Pearpoint v. Henry
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1796-04
Citations: 2 Wash. 192
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pearpoint v. Henry.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 705–706

Head Matter:
Pearpoint v. Henry.
April Term, 1796.
Trover and Conversion — Detinue, —Price of Thing Con verted. — In an action of trover and conversion, the declaration need not state the price of the thing converted, although it is otherwise in deti-nue.
This was an action of trover and conversion brought in the District Court of Mo-nongalia, by the appellee, for a negro woman. Upon the plea of not guilty, the jury found a verdict for the appellee. The appellant moved in arrest of judgment, and amongst other errors assigned the following viz. “that the price or value of the negro is not set forth in the declaration.”
^'Judgment for the appellee, from which an appeal was granted to this court.
Williams for the appellant.
It is essential in an action of trover and conversion, that the price should be stated in the declaration, 5 Bac. 275. If so, it is not cured by the act of Jeofails. It is true, that a mistake in setting forth a sum of money, quantity of merchandize, &c. is cured, if the same be rightly stated in any part of the record; but this clause in the act of Jeofails, will not aid the total omission of price.
Marshall for the appellee.
It is laid down in the case of 'Wood v. Smith, Cro. Ja. 129, by three judges against two, that at common law, it was not necessary to state the price in an action of trover and conversion, and the reason given'seems to be a sound one, viz: that damages are demanded, and not the thing itself. But if this were not so, it is certainly mere matter of form, and therefore cured by the act of Jeofails. It does not appear that’the cáse cited from 5 Bac. Ab. 275, was after verdict.
Williams in reply.
Another reason why the value should be stated in this country is, that the court may see whether they can properly try the suit in that particular form of action, for if the value were below £6, the suit by the law of this state should be by petition.
See monographic note on ‘ ‘Trover and Conversion’ ’ appended to Eastern Lunatic Asylum v. G-arrett. 27 Gratt. 163, and monographic note on “Detinue and Replevin" appended to Hunt v. Martin, 8 Gratt. 578.

Opinion:
SOANE), J.
It seems to be the better opinion, that a declaration in this action need not state the price of the thing converted, tho' this is necessary in the action of det-inue, where the thing itself, or the value is to be recovered. In the former case, it is not the price, which the plai.ntiif goes for, but damages for the conversion: and even where the price is laid, he may recover more or less, provided the damages do not exceed those laid in the declaration.
The COURT affirmed the judgment.