Case Name: William E. Wallace, appellant, v. A. W. Cox et al., appellees
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1916-12-19
Citations: 100 Neb. 601
Docket Number: No. 18944
Parties: William E. Wallace, appellant, v. A. W. Cox et al., appellees.
Judges: Letton, J., dissents.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 601–615

Head Matter:
William E. Wallace, appellant, v. A. W. Cox et al., appellees.
Filed December 19, 1916.
No. 18944.
1. Replevin: Judgment. Section 783,3, Rev. St. 1913, provides that, when the finding is for the defendant in an action of replevin, the judgment shall be “for a return of the property or the value thereof in case a return cannot be had.” The “value thereof” is instead of a return of the property when a return cannot be had, and should be the equivalent of the property itself as it was at the time of the trial.
2. -: Appeal: Bond: Damages. If, upon appeal to this court, such judgment is affirmed, and the property is returned to the defendant pursuant to such judgment, in an action upon the appeal bond the plaintiff cannot recover damages occurring prior to the original judgment.
Appeal from the district court for Webster county: Harry S. Dungan, Judge.
Affirmed.
L. B. Blackledge, for appellant.
Bernard McNeny, contra.

Opinion:
Sedgwick, J.
This action is upon a replevin bond. It was once ' before in this court, and in the first opinion the judgment of the district court was affirmed. 92 Neb. 354. Afterwards, upon rehearing, it was reversed and the cause remanded. 94 Neb. 194. There has since been a trial in the district court and the case is again appealed.
In this last trial the court instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff the amount that the jury in the first trial found as damages, together with the costs of the first trial, and then instructed the jury that the only question for them to determine ivas whether the property in question was damaged after the trial in the original replevin suit, and the amount of such damage. The plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury that they should find all damages which "occurred while the property was in the possession of the Clark Imple ment Company or its agents from the time it was taken in the replevin suit to the time of the offered return" of the property. The court in several different instructions made it plain to the jury that they should not allow any damages to the property in this suit upon the bond, which damages occurred before the trial of the replevin suit. This was upon the theory that the defendants in replevin must upon the trial recover any damages that have occurred to the property up to that time, and this is the principal, if not the only substantial, question that is presented in this record. The statute provides that, when' the finding is for the defendant, the judgment shall be "for a return of the-property or the value thereof in case a return cannot be had." Rev. St. 1913, sec. 7833. The "value thereof" is instead of a return of the property when a return cannot be had, and should be the equivalent of the property itself as it was at the time of the trial, that is, should be its value at the time of the trial, and, if it has been decreased in value by the action of the plaintiff in replevying it, such loss of value would be damages which should be included in the judgment in favor of the defendant in replevin. The New York court has so decided under a similar statute; that is, the New York court construes the statute to mean that the value thereof which is to be recovered in case the property cannot be returned is the value at the time the property should be returned, that is, at the time the judgment is entered. The contention of the plaintiff in this case now is that he ought to be allowed to prove that as a matter of fact the jury did not take into consideration any damages to the property in their verdict in the original replevin suit.
The trial court on this last trial has followed the decision of this court upon the former appeal, and the judgment is therefore
Affirmed.
Letton, J., dissents.