Court Opinion

ID: 6426937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:04:43.967577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:52:01.871061
License: Public Domain

Holmes, C. J.
The question called for the market value of the converted object, and the answer was an attempt to give it. The market value is at least the highest price that a normal purchaser not under peculiar compulsion will pay at the time and place in question in order to get the thing. See National Bank of Commerce v. New Bedford, 155 Mass. 313, 315. In the stock exchange buyers and sellers are brought together in a focus, with the result that there is no danger of missing the highest price by the accident of missing the man who would give it. Even if at a given moment there .is no buyer of the class that would most desire a certain stock or bond, there is an organized public ready to buy upon the anticipation that such a buyer will be found, and regulating the price which it will pay, more or less by that anticipation. There is no such focus for old furniture. The answer very properly recognized the uncertainty of encountering a purchaser who would give the reasonably possible highest price, and named an alternative sum. In a case like this market value is a criterion which oscillates within limits, because, in the absence of a balance wheel like the stock exchange, it cannot be assumed with regard to a single object and a single sale that the element of accident is eliminated, and that the most favorable purchaser will be encountered.

Exceptions overruled.