Broderick v. Torkomian

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Broderick v. Torkomian

139 A. 506, 107 Conn. 99, 1927 Conn. LEXIS 19

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 12, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 139 A. 506 (Broderick v. Torkomian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broderick v. Torkomian, 139 A. 506, 107 Conn. 99, 1927 Conn. LEXIS 19 (Colo. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff delivered the ring to the defendant in order that *100 the latter might show it to a prospective buyer and, in the first count, a conversion thereof by the defendant and, in a second count, that it was stolen and lost through defendant’s negligence. Only those assignments which relate to the measure of damages, as stated in the charge and reflected in the general verdict, are now pursued. The plaintiff offered evidence that the stone and setting cost him $505, that it was reasonably worth $650, but he told the defendant that he would make the price to him $600 so that he could make $50 on it if he sold it. The trial court instructed the jury that, if they found for the plaintiff, he would be entitled to recover the reasonable value of the ring with interest, and recounted the evidence above stated.

The measure of damages for conversion of the subject-matter of a bailment, or its loss through negligence of the bailee, is the value of the property at the time of its conversion or loss, with interest from that time, such value being fixed by the terms of the contract, if any, or, in the absence of contract, the market value. Stoll v. Judd Co., 106 Conn. 551, 560, 138 Atl. 479; 6 Corpus Juris, p. 1164. The charge as given was in accordance with our rule, and the amount of the verdict ($600, with interest) was justified by the evidence, either on the basis of contract or of the market value.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff delivered the ring to the defendant in order that *100 the latter might show it to a prospective buyer and, in the first count, a conversion thereof by the defendant and, in a second count, that it was stolen and lost through defendant’s negligence. Only those assignments which relate to the measure of damages, as stated in the charge and reflected in the general verdict, are now pursued. The plaintiff offered evidence that the stone and setting cost him $505, that it was reasonably worth $650, but he told the defendant that he would make the price to him $600 so that he could make $50 on it if he sold it. The trial court instructed the jury that, if they found for the plaintiff, he would be entitled to recover the reasonable value of the ring with interest, and recounted the evidence above stated.

The measure of damages for conversion of the subject-matter of a bailment, or its loss through negligence of the bailee, is the value of the property at the time of its conversion or loss, with interest from that time, such value being fixed by the terms of the contract, if any, or, in the absence of contract, the market value. Stoll v. Judd Co., 106 Conn. 551, 560, 138 Atl. 479; 6 Corpus Juris, p. 1164. The charge as given was in accordance with our rule, and the amount of the verdict ($600, with interest) was justified by the evidence, either on the basis of contract or of the market value.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A. 506, 107 Conn. 99, 1927 Conn. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broderick-v-torkomian-conn-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack