Court Opinion

ID: 9443011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:07:22.234181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:19.893114
License: Public Domain

RUSSELL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I do not share the opinion that the finding of value of the unreturned cans, as established below, is clearly erroneous. With the question of the number of unretumed cans settled, the issue in the case is the amount appellant is entitled to recover because of cans which were not returned. The appellant contends that recovery should be computed at the invoice price. The ap-pellee contends for computation on actual value, as adjudged by the referee. My colleagues reject, correctly I think, the appellant’s claim for invoice price, but also reject the referee’s finding of value. When we reject, as we must, the appellant’s claim upon open account represented by the invoices, the question of value is controlling. While the approach of the majority to their finding of value is slightly different from that of the referee, the result seems the same. At last it is a question of value. Based upon evidence, the referee found that the cans, after use, were worth an average of $2.50 each, and arrived at this figure upon the basis of a percentage of new can costs. The majority finds that the recoverable “loss” or “damages” to Momence must be computed upon the basis of “agreed value” with due allowance for “wear and tear”. I-think this is really just what the referee did. However, the majority find a value of $4 per can. Value is a matter of opinion. There is evidence to support the-referee’s determination and I see no proper basis for this Court setting it aside and adjudging another amount. I respectfully dissent.