From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perry v. Company

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Sullivan
Feb 28, 1957
129 A.2d 670 (N.H. 1957)

Opinion

No. 4553.

Argued January 4, 1957.

Decided February 28, 1957.

The ordinary measure of damages in an action for conversion is the value of the property at the time of conversion with interest to the date of judgment.

Evidence of what a motor vehicle sold for less than two months before its conversion by the defendant as well as the value ascribed to similar vehicles of the same type and year of manufacture by official valuation guide publications plus the defendant dealer's usual markup was admissible in determining its value at the time of conversion and warranted the verdict rendered.

In such case, the defendant was not entitled to have deducted from the verdict the value of certain body repairs he made to the vehicle after its conversion where he received the benefits therefrom by retaining possession of the vehicle, and the verdict rendered was for the value of the vehicle at the time of its conversion, and there was no evidence that such repairs were necessitated by anything which occurred from the date the vehicle was acquired by the plaintiff to the date of conversion.

TRESPASS, for the conversion of a 1947 Packard automobile.

Trial by Court (Grant, J.) resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs in the sum of $420 with interest from the date of conversion.

Defendant's exceptions to the admission and exclusion of evidence and to the denial of its motion to set aside the verdict as against the evidence, the law and the weight of the evidence were reserved and transferred.

Buckley, Zopf Sayce (Mr. Buckley orally) for the plaintiffs.

Leahy Denault (Mr. Denault orally), for the defendant.


On August 16, 1954, plaintiffs sold a 1947 Packard sedan to one Clarke for $450 on a conditional sales contract duly recorded in Springfield, Vermont. On or about October 11 next, defendant took this car in trade when it sold Clarke a 1946 Ford. There was a balance of $420 unpaid on the Packard at that time. Although demand was made of defendant it never surrendered the car to plaintiffs nor paid them the amount due and defendant concedes that there was a conversion.

The ordinary measure of damages in an action for conversion is the value of the property at the time of conversion with interest to the date of judgment. Morin v. Hood, 96 N.H. 485, 486.

There was evidence that this car was sold by plaintiffs to Clarke for $450 less than two months before the conversion. Defendant's president and treasurer testified as to values ascribed to used cars in certain official publications generally used in the automobile business as guides to valuation. One of these publications gave an average retail value of $310 for a 1947 Packard of this type and of $290 for a 1946 Ford similar to that sold to Clarke by defendant. Defendant sold the Ford to Clarke in October for $395 being $105 more than the above given price. It could be found by the Court that this same markup over listed average retail value was applicable to the Packard and thus that it had then a market value of at least $415 ($310 plus $105). This evidence warrants a finding that the value of the 1947 Packard on the date of conversion was $420. Kelsea v. Fletcher, 48 N.H. 282; Wentworth Bus Co. v. Sandown, 99 N.H. 5, 9; Moss v. Rocky Point Park, Inc., 81 R. I. 327; Cf. Stetson v. Davidson, (Vt.) 126 A.2d 921.

The body work in the amount of $90 performed on the Packard by the defendant after taking it in trade consisted in repairing the places where it was rusted. There was no evidence that these repairs were made necessary by anything which occurred between August 16 when plaintiffs sold the car and October 11 when defendant took it in trade. As the evidence warranted the finding of a value of $420 when defendant acquired the car it is not being charged by the verdict with any increase in value due to the repairs which it made. Beede v. Lamprey, 64 N.H. 510; Cline v. Rountree, 236 F.2d 412. By retaining the car defendant and not plaintiffs will benefit from the work it performed and it is not entitled to any deduction for its cost. Restatement, Restitution, s. 154.

Judgment on the verdict.

All concurred.


Summaries of

Perry v. Company

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Sullivan
Feb 28, 1957
129 A.2d 670 (N.H. 1957)
Case details for

Perry v. Company

Case Details

Full title:CLARENCE C. PERRY a. v. W. H. BURBEE, INC

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Sullivan

Date published: Feb 28, 1957

Citations

129 A.2d 670 (N.H. 1957)
129 A.2d 670

Citing Cases

Pleasant Valley Campground, Inc. v. Rood

Defendant correctly asserts that the value of the mobile home for purposes of establishing damages is to be…

Kenerson v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co.

However, when a cause of action sounds in conversion, "[t]he ordinary measure of damages . . . is the value…