Court Opinion

ID: 9833112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:27:28.022982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:59.748855
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee urges that there was no evidence of probative force to support appellant’s suit for damages; that appellant failed to show the reasonable market value of the goods taken by appellee, and failed to show that said goods had no market value. Hence, that she failed to show that she was entitled to damages for the alleged conversion. She testified to the lowest cost price, when new, in the local market, of some of these goods, and testified to the wholesale cost of the leaves of a table which she claimed were taken by appellee. The rule as to the measure of damages for household goods lost through the negligence of a defendant, or taken by him, is not what secondhand goods of the same kind would cost, but what the goods lost, destroyed, or taken were reasonably worth to the plaintiff in the condition they were in at the time. Where secondhand household furniture and wearing apparel is wholly destroyed, or convérted, a proper method of arriving at their value at the time of the loss is to take into consideration the cost of the articles new, the extent of their use, whether worn or out of date, their condition at the time, etc., and from these and other pertinent facts to determine their value. G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wallraven (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 116. It seems that it is not necessary to allege or prove the want of market value of such goods in order to make available proof of actual value. Wells Fargo Express Co. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.) 71 S. W. 314; Benedict v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 91 S. W. 811; I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. .Nicholson, 61 Tex. 550; A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Smythe, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 557, 119 S. W. 892, 895, writ of error refused; Pecos & N. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. Grundy et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 171 S. W. 318.
We have considered the other questions stressed in the motion for rehearing, but believe that we have correctly disposed of them on original hearing. The motion is overruled.