Case Name: ANDERSON, Respondent, v. FREEMAN, Appellant
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1918-03-26
Citations: 40 S.D. 249
Docket Number: File No. 4278
Parties: ANDERSON, Respondent, v. FREEMAN, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 249–251

Head Matter:
ANDERSON, Respondent, v. FREEMAN, Appellant.
(167 N. W. 143.)
(File No. 4278.
Opinion filed March 26, 1918.
Rehearing denied May 7, 1918.)
1. Trials — Appeal—Claim and Delivery — Evidence—Verdict, Uncontradicted Statement, As Controlled By.
Where, in claim and delivery, th© evidence is contradictory except as to that of one witness, who testified as to time when, he purchased, the machine in defendant’s possession and sold by him to defendant, the verdict is controlling upon that question.
2. New Trials — Passion and Prejudice, re Damages — Verdict Dess Than Testimony Justified, Effect.
Where, in claim and delivery for an auto, a new trial was sought because verdict showed passion and prejudice of jury in finding damages for $62, trial court having recited in the judgment that evidence was ample to sustain the corrected item of $35 damages, the minimum value of the auto testified to 'by any witnesses being $3 50, the verdict placing its value at only $300, such verdict refutes any question of passion or prejudice.
3. New Trials — Claim, and Delivery — Damages for Detention, Value of Time, Verdict as Controlling.
Where, in claim and delivery, a verdict for damages was reduced by trial court to $35, judgment recitmg evidence was ample to sustain that amount, the contention that evidence was only sufficient to sustain an item of $17 damages, under Civ. Code, Sec. 2315, Subd. 3, providing that the detriment caused by wrongful conversion of personalty is presumed to be a fair compensation for tim© and money properly expended in pursuit of the property, is untenable; evidence being sufficient to show expenditure of at least $30 in pursuit of property: and the verdict should not be reduced, although there was no express testimony of value of plaintiff’s time so expended.
Appeal from Circuit Gaunt, Codington Gaunlty. lion. Cari, G. Si-dSRWOOD, Judge.
Action by 'EX. M. Anderson, a minor, by Andy E. Eoley, 'as guardian ad liten, against Chandes Freeman, for pos'session of an automobile, and far 'damages for its 'detention'. From, a judgment for (plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, 'defendant 'appeals.
Affirmed.
Shcfin & Sherin, fair Appellant.
Loucks, Hasche & Foley, for Respondent.

Opinion:
GATES, J.
Action for Itlhe possession of an automobile.. Verdict 'for plaintiff for $300 as the ¡value of the auto, $4.37 as interest and $62 .ais damages. Before the entry of judgment plaintiff elected to reduce the item icif $62 to $35, whereupon 'judgment..was entered! aocordingiy. 'Defendant appeals from the judgment -and from tibe denial of a new trial, .and raises three questions.
It is first 'contended ¡that the evidence was insufficient to establish the identity of the machine in defendant's possession-as the one owned by plaintiff. With one exception the evidence is contradictory. As to the 'exception, .the juiry evidently did not' believe Itihe mfcontiraldi'ctad statement of an interested person as to tibe time he purchased the machine in defendanit's pos'sesision and sold by him to defendant. We think the verdict isi 'controlling upon that question.
It is next 'Contended ¡that the verdict -showed .passion anld prejudice qni ithe part of the jury because it returned a verdict for $62 damages. The trial count irec'iteld in the judgment that ¡there was 'ample evidence Ifo sustain the corrected item of $35 -damages. The minimum Value of the miaabine testified to by 'any witness wag $350; yet the verdict only placed the value art $300. We think this amply refutes ¡any -question of passion or prejudice.
lib is next contended that the evidence was -only sufficient to -sustain an item of $17 for damages, that is, under subdivision 3, § 2315, C. C. There wlals 'Sufficient evidence toi show ait least thle expenditure of $30 by plaintiff in -pursuit' of tli-e property; anidl, -although ;tbdre was no express testimony showing the value of plaintiff's time for the 'two days so spent, we cannot say ifhart ¡the verdict should be further reduced- .in view of tine above recital in the juldlgmenlt.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed