Case Name: Watson S. French v. Viola Miller
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1909-02-20
Citations: 82 Vt. 91
Docket Number: 
Parties: Watson S. French v. Viola Miller.
Judges: Present: Rowell, C. J., Munson, Watson, and Haselton, JJ.
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 91–92

Head Matter:
Watson S. French v. Viola Miller.
Appointed Special Term at Brattleboro, February, 1909.
Present: Rowell, C. J., Munson, Watson, and Haselton, JJ.
Opinion filed February 20, 1909.
Trover — Instructions—Harmless Error.
In trover for tbe conversion of a pair of stags, the error, if any, in instructions as to the amount of damage recoverable was harmless where the jury by necessary implication found that there was no conversion.
Trover for a pair of stags. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the April Term, 1908, Windham County, Powers, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The opinion states the case.
Chase and Haley for the plaintiff.
The measure of damages in an action of trover by the general owner of property is the actual value of the property at the time of alleged conversion and a sum equal to legal interest from the time of conversion to the time of the trial, not as interest but as damages. The court should have followed this rule in admitting evidence in this action, and should have conformed to that rule in his charge to the jury without regard to any liens there might be on the property. Davis v. Bowers Granite Company, 75 Vt. 286, at page 288; Clement v. Spear, 56 Vt. 401; Bobbins V. Packard, 31 Vt. 570; Thrall v. Lathrop, 30 Vt. 307; Grant v. King, 14 Vt. 367; Angier v. Paper Company, 1 Gray 621, 61 Am. Dec. 436; White v. Webb, 15 Conn. 302; Harker v. Dement, 52 Am. Dec. 670 and notes; Ingersol v. Van Bokkelin, 7 Conn. 670.
Herbert G. Barber and Frank E. Barber for the defendant.
The error, if any, in the instructions complained of was harmless, as the jury found no conversion; and so there is no ground of reversal. Nones v. Northhouse, 46 Yt. 587, at page 593; Hodge V. Bennington, 43 Yt. 450; Sampson V. Warner, 48 Yt. 247; Burnham v. Jenness, 54 Yt. 272; Frary v. Gusha, 59 Yt. 257; Burnell v. Maloney, 39 Yt. 579; Hogan v. North-field, 56 Yt. 721; Victor Sewing Machine Go. v. Weeks, 49 Yt. 342; McKindly v. Drew, 71 Yt. 138.

Opinion:
Rowell, C. J.
This is trover for a pair of stags, which the plaintiff owned subject to a mortgage and an agister's lien. The defendant denied a conversion, and controverted the value of the stags. The court charged that if there was no conversion, the plaintiff could not recover; but if there was, that he was entitled to nominal damages, and to as much more as the value of the stags exceeded the amount of the liens. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, which necessarily means that it did not find a conversion. The plaintiff claims that he was the general owner of the stags, and therefore was entitled to recover, if at all, their full value, regardless of the liens, and that it was error to charge otherwise, and prejudicial to him. But if error, it could not have been prejudicial to him, for it did not touch the question of conversion, which was found against him.
Judgment affirmed.