Lynch v. McGhan

BURNETT, J.

The appeal is from an order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The action was brought to recover damages for the conversion of six horses and some other personal property.

The court found that “plaintiff has been damaged by such unlawful conversion in the following specific amounts, namely: the sum of $252.60 cash táken from plaintiff; the sum of $160, the value of the aforesaid six horses; the sum of $17, the amount of time and money spent by plaintiff in the pursuit of the aforesaid property; the sum of $140, on account of the loss of use of the aforesaid six horses from the time of their conversion, and the sum of $22.60, which is the interest on the value of the aforesaid money and horses from the time of their conversion by defendant at the rate of seven per cent per annum, which makes the total amount of plaintiff’s damages sustained in the premises the sum of $592.20.”

It is obvious that this finding is erroneous, at least as to the $140 for the use of the horses.

The rule as to damages for the conversion of personal property is prescribed in section 3336 of the Civil Code as follows: “The detriment caused by the wrongful conversion of personal property is presumed to be: 1. The value of the property at the time of the conversion, with the interest from that time, or where the action has been prosecuted with reasonable diligence, the highest market value of the prop

[134]

erty at any time between the conversion and the verdict with- ■ out interest at the option of the injured party; and 2. A fair compensation for the time and money properly expended in pursuit of the property.”

The interest on the value of the property is the allowance provided by the statute in lieu of the value of the use of the property and not in addition thereto.

The.question has been more or less considered in the following cases:

Douglass

v.

Kraft,

9 Cal. 562 ;