Court Opinion

ID: 9834424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:34:35.546396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:14.965029
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellants have asked us to make a fuller statement on- the issue of market value, strenuously insisting that the verdict of the jury has no support in the evidence.
Appellant C. D. Wagner testified:
“I think I sold that car to Mr. Dunham for $850. As to what the actual market value of the car was at that time, well, we were selling Maxwell cars for that amount at that time. I consider that was the market value of the car.”
Referring to the morning the car was injured, Mrs. Dunham testified:
“I asked him [Mr. Wagner] if he could dispose of it without much loss, and he said he thought he could, as he had a buyer for a Maxwell car on the day before.”
Henry, Austin testified:
“I saw the car after it was injured. That car was the car in question here in this suit. The front axle of the car was bent or the front wheel was out of line. ♦ * * I don’t remember that there was any exact amount put on the loss, but' as well as I remember it was very small, in the neighborhood of $10 or $15. It was a very minor accident. I was not in Mr. Dunham’s house when the accident occurred. I saw Mr. Dunham that day.”
Ellis S. Joubert testified:
“I live at 1995 Liberty street. I am engaged in the automobile repair business. I have been engaged in that business in Beaumont about nine years. I was engaged in that business in 1918, and along about August, 1918, I was particularly well acquainted with the value of cars generally, and used, secondhand cars. I did service work on Maxwell cars when I had the agency here and some for Mr. Wagner at times. I was acquainted with cars in 1918, along about August 8th, Maxwell cars, and knew the market value of both secondhand and new cars within around approximately $50 or $100.
“Q. What would be, Mr. Joubert, the value of a five-passenger touring Maxwell car of 191S model, new, practically new, in 1918, of the one described here you have heard testified about?
“Mr. Nall: If he knew the condition of this car. This was a damaged car at the time it was stolen, and we insist that he should know the condition of the car.
“Q. The axle of this car slightly twisted, as described here in the testimony which you have heard. It was a new car, no demonstrator.
“Mr. Nall: There was nothing to show it was a new car.
“A. The price along about that time was $850 for a Maxwell car, to my knowledge. That is the value of a new car. The value of a new car run a month, just a month, with this axle slightly twisted, depends on how the car is going to be sold. A car with an axle bent would depreciate a car quite a bit to a buyer that wasn’t familiar with automobiles. My opinion of a car bought as a new car and owned by any one becomes a secondhand car, after it is first bought, you know, and taking a car that way, that would have to be agreed upon, the party buying and paying for the car, what he figures on buying the car for, or what the buyer agrees to sell it for. In other words, if I bought a car, I would figure on the price I paid for it and the profit I wanted to make. I can give that testimony in a matter of business I turned myself. I have bought a Maxwell ear, especially, that was in a street car wreck; bought it off the street. The condition of this car, run a month, and the axle slightly twisted, value $850 new, as I stated, I think it would be depreciated about one-third. 1 think that would be a depreciation of about $225.”
Vol. 3, Words and Phrases, Second Series, 301, gives the following definition of market value:
“ ‘Market value’ is said to be such sum of money as the property is worth in the market generally to the persons who would pay the just and full value for what the property would bring at a fair sale, where one party wants to sell and the other to buy.”
Market value can be shown by circumstances. 13 Enc. of Ev. 511. Witnesses testifying as to market value should be permitted to state their judgment or opinion, together with the facts upon which such opinion is founded. Jones’ Commentaries on Evidence, § 363.
On the issue of market value, the weight of the testimony of a witness who “refuses to testify positively to the facts is for the jury to determine.” 14 Enc. of Ev. 142.
 It is conceded that Joubert was qualified to testify as to market value. His estimate was that the car had depreciated a third from its cost price. In amount he stated th*e depreciation to be, in his judgment, $225. In qualifying as an expert, he said that he could testify within $50 or $100 of the value of a secondhand Maxwell car. Under the rule above cited from 14 Enc. of Ev., it is for the jury to weigh his evidence and reach their own conclusion of the value of the car within the limits proposed by him. The verdict of $700 is less than the extreme amount, which he suggested. The market value of a secondhand automobile is not such sum as the car would bring at a forced sale, but such sum as it will bring when offered to a person who is in the market for a secondhand car, and who is willing to pay its just and full value. The wit*1047ness recognized this rule in making his estimate, as he said, “taking the car that way, that (the market value) would have to be agreed upon, the party buying and paying for the car what he figures on buying the car for, or what the buyer agrees to sell it for.”
Again, on the facts of this case, the jury were not required to find within the limits of this witness’ testimony. All the circumstances were before them for their consideration in reaching their verdict. The car had been used only a month. The injury to the car was very slight. One of the appellants stated that he thought he could sell the car without much loss. The weight to he given these circumstances was for the jury. In the light of the statement made by us on this rehearing, we cannot escape the conclusion that the verdict of the jury is fully sustained.
The motion for rehearing is in all things overruled.