Court Opinion

ID: 9811810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:29:16.486504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:34.144342
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.,
dissenting: The issue submitted was “what amount if any, is defendant indebted to the plaintiff?” There was conflict of evidence as to the liability and, if any,, the testimony conflicted further as to tlxe price.
There being a conflict in the evidence as to what was the price agreed upon by the parties, the fact that the price asserted by the vendee was not above the cost of the article to the vendors was some evidence to be submitted to the jury. As the vendors were conducting their business for profit, this was some evidence tending to corroborate their testimony that they agreed upon a higher price. “It is not necessary that the evidence should bear directly on the issue. It is. admissable if it tends to prove the issue or constitutes a link *98in the chain of proof, although alone, it might not justify a verdict in accordance with it.” Greenleaf Ev., Sec. 51a. Taylor Ev., (Sec. 316) after quoting this rule in the same words says : “While the Judge should reject as too remote every fact which furnishes a fanciful analogy or conjectural inference, he may admit as relevant the evidence of all those matters which shed a real, though perhaps an indirect and feeble light, on the question in issue.” “In doubtful cases, and in the absence of better evidence, the actual cost of the thing to the seller is relevant to the question of its value,” Abb. Trial Ev., 307. ‘Tn such cases, evidence of the price paid by vendors is competent. The authorities on this subject are decisive and uniform, and we think the rule they establish is sound in principle.” Wells v. Kelsey, 37 N. Y., 143, citing several cases. “It has been held that what a party paid for property is some evidence of its value.” Hoffman v. Connor, 76 N. Y., 121, citing several authorities. The value of the articles, and still more the cost of the same, was competent, not to contradict an agreement as to price if it had been shown, but to aid the jury in coming to a conclusion upon the conflicting evidence as to what was the price agreed on. “The direct evidence being evenly balanced, the jury could consider and weigh the probabilities, and the evidence thereof is competent.” Nelson v. Davis, 6 Am. Rep. 568; Harris v. Railroad, 58 N. Y., 660; Abb. Trial Ev., 305, 309. In my opinion it was very pertinent and useful to the jury, as it would have been to any one outside a jury box in coming to a conclusion as to which of the two parties, if of equal character, was right as to the agreement, and His Honor properly admitted it for that purpose, as he told the jury.