47 A. 211 | R.I. | 1900
The opinion in this case,
The court did not hold that the contract price was the value of the property, but only that the plaintiff's interest in it could not exceed that amount.
So much of the testimony offered by the defendant as related to the value of the buggy at a time after the conversion was rightly excluded, unless supplemented by testimony to show that it was then in the same condition.
Testimony as to the value at the time of conversion should have been admitted; but under a misunderstanding of the opinion, which, perhaps, was not sufficiently clear on this point, it was excluded. *227
Petition for new trial on assessment of damages granted, and case remitted.