Case Name: WILDES et al. v. ROBINSON
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-04-02
Citations: 63 N.Y.S. 811
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILDES et al. v. ROBINSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 63
Pages: 811–816

Head Matter:
WILDES et al. v. ROBINSON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
April 2, 1900.)
1. Corporate Stock — Sales—Measure op Damages.
The measure of damages, in an action to recover for the failure to deliver stock according to contract, is the difference between the price agreed to be paid therefor and its market value on the day on which it was to have been delivered.
2. Same — Evidence—Market Quotations — Actual Sales.
In an action to recover damages for failure to deliver stock according to a contract, evidence that the market quotation on such stock on the day on which it was to have been delivered was from 65 to 75 is not sufficient to show the value of the stock, where it was not shown that the quotations were based on actual sales.
O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, New York county.
Action by Clarence H. Wildes and others against John M. Bobin son to recover damages for failure to deliver stock. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
Beversed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
Charles P. Howland, for appellant. .
Henry A. Wise, for respondents.

Opinion:
RUMSEY, J.
This judgment should be reversed because there was no sufficient evidence of damages. The measure of damages in this case is the difference between the price which the plaintiff agreed to pay for the stock on the 26th of February and its value on the 28th. of February, the day on which it was to have been delivered. The transaction took place in New York. There is no evidence whatever that any dealings were had in this stock in this city. All that the plaintiff endeavored to show was that the stock had been dealt in in Philadelphia, and he gave some facts with regard to an offer made for it in that city. The witnesses stated that 71 was bid for the stock on the 26th of February, and that its market quotation on the 28th ran from 65 to 75. There was no evidence of the circumstances under which a bid was made, — whether it was in the open market, on the floor of the stock exchange, under such conditions as to warrant the conclusion that the person to whom the bid was made had any stock for sale, or that the person making the bid was in a situation to buy it. Such an offer as that is not, I think, any evidence as to the value of the property. It was a mere unaccepted offer, in an isolated transaction, and it does not appear that it was made in the market, attended by sellers and buyers. Whitney v. Thacher, 117 Mass. 523, 527; Hanna v. Sandford, 20 W. Dig. 288. It is quite true that market quotations, under certain circumstances, aré some evidence of value, but they only have that effect where they are based on actual sales of the stock quoted. There was no evidence in the case bearing upon the question .of damages, and, because the evidence given was entirely insufficient to warrant the jury to find the value of the stock, the judgment should be reversed.
Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.
VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, J., concur.