D. Appleton & Co. v. Zeese-Wilkinson Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

D. Appleton & Co. v. Zeese-Wilkinson Co.

140 Misc. 653, 251 N.Y.S. 532, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1451

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 29, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 140 Misc. 653 (D. Appleton & Co. v. Zeese-Wilkinson Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

D. Appleton & Co. v. Zeese-Wilkinson Co., 140 Misc. 653, 251 N.Y.S. 532, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

While ordinarily the measure of damages for the loss or conversion of personal property is the value of the property at the time of the loss or conversion (McIntyre v. Whitney, 139 App. Div. 557; affd., 201 N. Y. 526) this rule is not required to be applied as to articles such as those involved herein (plates for illustrating a book published by plaintiff) which are not salable as such. In such cases the actual value of the property to the person injured may be recovered. Proof of replacement cost less depreciation is evidence of such value. (Barrington v. Offenbach, 163 N. Y. Supp. 423; Lovell v. Shea, 18 id. 193.) Here, however, there was proof indicating that the plates substituted for those lost were of a different type. Further, there was no proof of the reasonableness of the sums expended and there was no allowance for depreciation of the lost goods. The decision below was correct on the other questions involved in the case.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered limited solely to the question of plaintiff’s damage, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

While ordinarily the measure of damages for the loss or conversion of personal property is the value of the property at the time of the loss or conversion (McIntyre v. Whitney, 139 App. Div. 557; affd., 201 N. Y. 526) this rule is not required to be applied as to articles such as those involved herein (plates for illustrating a book published by plaintiff) which are not salable as such. In such cases the actual value of the property to the person injured may be recovered. Proof of replacement cost less depreciation is evidence of such value. (Barrington v. Offenbach, 163 N. Y. Supp. 423; Lovell v. Shea, 18 id. 193.) Here, however, there was proof indicating that the plates substituted for those lost were of a different type. Further, there was no proof of the reasonableness of the sums expended and there was no allowance for depreciation of the lost goods. The decision below was correct on the other questions involved in the case.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered limited solely to the question of plaintiff’s damage, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 Misc. 653, 251 N.Y.S. 532, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/d-appleton-co-v-zeese-wilkinson-co-nyappterm-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack