Moody v. Caulk, 14 Fla. 50

RANDALL, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

There is but a single question raised by the assignment of errors which it seems necessary to notice, and that is, whether the court erred in ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍the rule given to the' jury for estimating thе damages in case they found a verdict for plaintiff under the count for the conversion. . ,

In that respect the court committed an error.

In the case of Robinson vs. Hartridge (13 Fla., 501, 515.) it was held that in a case of this character, the rule of estimаting damages is to take the value of the ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍goods аt the time and place of conversion, and сompute lawful interest thereon to the date of the verdict.

Sedgwick on'the Measure of Damages, 481, says :

“ I have' had occasion to notiсe the claim of damages for the use of property which has been sold and the price pаid, between the time’when the cause of actiоn accrued and that of the trial, and the analogous question where the use of the property is withheld, and we have seen that different rules have been prescribed by different tribunals. The same analogies ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍should govern in trover; and it appears to me thаt on principle, unless the plaintiff lias been deprived of some particular use of his property, of which the other party was apprized, the rights оf the parties are fixed at 'the time of the illegal act, be it the refusal to deliver or actual conversion, and that the damages should be estimated at that’time.”

This language of Mr. Sedgwick is approved ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍in Arrowsmith vs. Gordon, 3 La. Ann. Rep., 487. The former was an action for the conversion of cotton. The rule fluctuates in some of the States, and in some the established rule differs frоm that in other States. Mr. Sedgwick has collated and еxamined the various decisions, and we can but agree with his conclusion upon principle, and we think thаt in actions for conversion where the subject оf the action is ordinary merchandize, and like property which is the subject of ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍traffic, or perishable property, the value .at the time of the unauthоrized act, with interest, is the proper measure of damages. In the case of public stocks held as an investment, of rare pictures, jewels and like аrticles, held otherwise than for purposes of immеdiate commerce, it would be equitable and proper that the highest value after conversiоn should prevail, if the jury should be satisfied from the evidenсe that the plaintiff would have held the propеrty up to the time of the advance in value ; for thе defendant should make good the actual loss sustained by reason of his act. But this suggestion isprobabiy not аpplicable to the present ease. Judging from the testimony and the whole record, the jury found their verdict under the count for conversion, and in accordance with the rule laid down in the charge of the court.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted.

Case Details

Case Name: Moody v. Caulk

Court Name: Supreme Court of Florida

Date Published: Jan 15, 1872

Citation: 14 Fla. 50

Court Abbreviation: Fla.