Note on Value of Personal Property.

NOTES OF RECENT CASES ON TESTIMONY AS TO VALUE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.

Alabama: Little v. Lischkoff, 1893, 12 Southern Rep., 429 (in an action upon an attachment bond, plaintiff may testify as to his opinion of the market value of the goods when attached). Illinois: Parmele v. Raymond, 43 Ill. App., 609 (every one is presumed to know the value of articles in common use, e. g., toilet articles). Michigan: Richter v. Harper, 95 Mich., 221; s. c. 54 Northwest. Rep., 768 (it is error to allow a witness to testify as to the value of articles described to him, where the description is not stated to the jury); Erickson v. Drazkowski, 94 Mich., 551; s. c. 54 Northwest. Rep., 283 (in an action to recover the value of household goods, the plaintiff and her husband are presumed, as householders, to know their value, and may testify in reference thereto). Missouri: Bowne v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 46 Mo. App., 473 (a witness after he testifies that he knows the value of articles, may state their value; his means of knowledge is properly a subject for cross-examination). Nebraska: Omaha Auction, etc., Co. v. Rogers, 35 Neb., 61; s. c. 52 Northwest. Rep., 826 (a person having a general knowledge of household goods may testify in reference thereto, though he has not dealt in goods of that kind). New York: Moore v. Baylies, 32 N. Y. State Rep., 72; s. c. 10 N. Y. Supp., 62 (any person who knows the value of personal property is competent to give his opinion on the subject); S. P. Robinson v. Peru Plow & W. Co., Okla., 1893, 31 Pacific Rep., 988). Texas: Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Vancil, Tex., Civ. App., 21 Southwest. Rep., 303 (a railway passenger suing for a delay in the delivering of her trunk may testify as to the value of the use of her property during the delay).

NOTE.-In an action for damages done by defendant's cattle, in entering on the plaintiff's land and destroying his grass and apples, the following questions were put to witnesses and objected to as calling for opinions. 1. "To the best of your judgment, were there one hundred bushels of apples there?"

2. ..
What was the rowen worth?"
3. "What was the grass worth?"

Held, that the questions were properly admitted; LEARNED, P. J., saying as to the first question: "Unless a witness has actually made a count, an inquiry as to numbers is always a matter depending in a certain sense on his judgment, but it is admissible;" and as to the other questions: "It is always proper to ask a witness who is acquainted with the matter what is the value of an article. There is hardly any other way of proving value." Townsend v. Brundage, 6 N. Y. Supm. Ct. (T. & C.), 527.

In an action upon a promissory note made by the defendants, in which, as a counterclaim, the defendants set up a demand against the plaintiff for board, lodging and use of room, one of the defendants having testified that she had been a housekeeper for thirty years; that she performed the

Note on Value of Personal Property.

services necessary in furnishing such board, and that she herself rented the house where they lived when the plaintiff commenced boarding with them, and afterwards owned the house in which she boarded, was asked: "How much was the board and occupation of the room worth during the time plaintiff was there?"

This was objected to as incompetent, immaterial and improper, and also that the witness was not qualified to speak.

Held, that the question was properly admitted; that the witness was competent.

Hook . Kenyon 55 Hun, 598.

McCollom v. Seward, 62 N. Y., 316.

MCCOLLOM v. SEWARD.

New York Court of Appeals, 1875.

[Reported in 62 N. Y., 316.]

After a witness has heard plaintiff testify as to the character and time of his services, he may be asked: "What were his services as he (plaintiff) described them, worth per month?" for the question, in effect, is hypothetical, and leaves the jury to pass upon the credibility of the testimony upon which the opinion was based.

Action for services as laborer and foreman; the issue being on their value.

A witness for plaintiff who having testified he had heard plaintiff's testimony in his own behalf stating the details of what he did, then was asked: "What were his services, as he describes them, worth a month, taking the whole year round?"

Defendant's counsel objected on the ground that it was not competent for witness to give an opinion on plaintiff's state

ment.

The referee overruled the objection and defendant's counsel excepted.

Judgment was rendered for plaintiff on Referee's report.

The Supreme Court at General Term affirmed the judgment, being of opinion that the question was to all intents and purposes a hypothetical question.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

ANDREWS, J. The question put to the witness Robinson, is not subject to the objection that it called upon him to determine the truth of facts deposed to by the plaintiff before giving an opinion as to the value of his services. If the question was subject to the construction put upon it by the counsel for the defendant the objection was well founded. It was for the jury to determine the credit to be given to the plaintiff's testimony, and the opinion of Robinson as to the value of the services founded upon the plaintiff's evidence could only be given

McCollom . Seward, 62 N. Y., 316.

hypothetically, that is, assuming that the facts stated by him were true, which it was for the jury to decide. And this we think was implied in the question put. The question was: "What were his services, as he (plaintiff) described them, worth a month, taking the whole year round?" This was equivalent to asking him " Assuming that the services rendered were as described by the plaintiff what were they worth?" It left the jury to pass upon the credibility of the testimony upon which the opinion was based. The allowance of interest on the plaintiff's claim from the time of the commencement of the suit although the amount was then unliquidated, was proper within the recent authorities upon the subject. (Feeter. Heath, 11 Wend., 478; Van Rensselaer v. Jewett, 2 N. Y., 135: Adams v. Fort Plain Bank, 36 id., 255; Mygatt v. Wilcox, 45 id., 306; McCormick v. The Penn. Central R. R. Co., 49 id., 304.)

The judgment should be affirmed.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

In Head ♥. Hargrave, 105 U. S., 45, an action for legal services, it was held that the opinions of attorneys as to their value, were not to preclude the jury from exercising their "own knowledge or ideas" upon the value of such services; that this was a principle applicable to opinions as to the value of labor in other departments, and as to the value of property, it being the jury's province to determine the weight due the opinions expressed.

In Johnson . Myers, 103 N. Y., 663, an action for services, a witness having been shown to have had abundant opportunity to know, was asked what proportion of Johnson's time was devoted to Myers' business.

This was objected to on the ground that the witness was incompetent to give an opinion. The objection was overruled and an exception taken. The witness answered, "One-half from 1864, to the time of Johnson's death." Held, that the question was proper as calling for a fact within the witness' knowledge and not for an opinion.

Notes of Cases on Value of Services, etc.

NOTES OF OTHER CASES ON TESTIMONY AS TO VALUE OF SERVICES.

Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Roberts, 35 Ill. App., 137 (in an action for killing a married woman her husband cannot testify as the value of her services to himself and family). Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bivans, 142 Ill., 401; s. c. 32 Northeast. Rep., 456 (in an action for personal injuries plaintiff may give his opinion as to the value of his services per day during the time he was disabled).

Loy. Petty, Ind. App., 1892, 29 Northeast. Rep., 788 (in an action by a minor for services on a farm, farmers who had seen the plaintiff work may testify as to the value of his services).