Hurd v. Barnhart
This text of 53 Cal. 97 (Hurd v. Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The Court charged that the measure of damages was what the use of the property was worth to the plaintiff during the time that he was deprived of it; and that in ascertaining the value the jury should consider how the plaintiff could and would have used the property had it not been taken from him.
This was substituting a speculative and peculiar measure of damages for the true rule, which, as applied to the case, was what the use of such property could have been procured for— in other words, the market value—and was erroneous.
The sixth instruction, given at the request of plaintiff, was erroneous in requiring the defendant to prove a special agreement for pasturage on land not included in the lease.
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
53 Cal. 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurd-v-barnhart-cal-1878.