Hurd v. Barnhart (1878) · DecisionDepot

Hurd v. Barnhart

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1878 No. No. 5940Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred by instructing the jury to use a speculative measure of damages based on the plaintiff's intended use of the property rather than its market rental value, and by improperly shifting the burden of proof regarding a special agreement.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its instruction regarding the measure of damages for the deprivation of property.
Whether the trial court erred in its instruction regarding the burden of proof for a special agreement for pasturage.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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.”

Synopsis

Damages fob Wrongful Seizure of Property.—The measure of damages for the wrongful seizure and detention of property hy attachment is the market value of the use of the property during the time of the detention, not its value to the plaintiff.

Counter-claim.—In the case stated, it was error to require proof of special agreement for pasturage on land not leased to defendant.

By the Court : 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.

Hurd v. Barnhart

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief