117 Ark. 446 | Ark. | 1915
(after stating the facts).
The testimony shows that there was water in the slough, and the manner of handling the trunk over the slough in the rowboat, with the ‘condition the trunk was shown to be in before and after 'this transfer, made the conclusion inevitable that the damage was produced while it was being transported over the slough. The finding of the jury was therefore not speculative, as appellant insists, but was based upon substantial evidence.
The most reasonable conclusion from the evidence adduced, in fact the only conclusion, was that the trunk was allowed to become water-soaked while in the possession of the employees of appellant. See Georgia S. & F. Ry. Co. v. DuBose, 71 S. E. 945.
‘ ‘ The value of personal baggage is to be determined by what it is worth to its owner .and .not what it would bring on the market. ” See oases cited in note.
■ The appellee was not estopped by the .allegations of her complaint from showing what the apparel was worth to her .after the damage occurred, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The judgment is correct, and it is therefore affirmed.