Hurd v. Hubbell
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Trover. Upon the trial the plaintiff claimed to have proved that the property had been left by him in the hands of one Hector, upon an agreement that it should become the property of Hector upon the payment by him of a certain note, and not before; that Hector afterwards, before payment of the note, and while the property belonged to the plaintiff, transferred it to the defendant, who converted it to his own use; and that the defendant took the property with knowledge of the…
Read the full summary
Trover. Upon the trial the plaintiff claimed to have proved that the property had been left by him in the hands of one Hector, upon an agreement that it should become the property of Hector upon the payment by him of a certain note, and not before; that Hector afterwards, before payment of the note, and while the property belonged to the plaintiff, transferred it to the defendant, who converted it to his own use; and that the defendant took the property with knowledge of the plaintiff’s rights, and for the purpose of enabling Hector to defraud the plaintiff. Thereupon, in accordance with the…
1Opinion of the CourtEllsworth, J.
The question presented in this case is, what is the true rule of damages in the action of trover. We have so recently presented our views on this subject, and on the subject of damages in all actions of tort, in the case of St. Peter's Church of Milford v. Beach, (ante, p. 355,) that we need not dwell on the topic farther. We there held, that in such an action as this, the value of the property and interest is the rule of damages, and that the expenses of litigation, not being the natural and proximate consequences of the conversion, are not to be recovered.
*391Besides, we have always understood…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Clark v. WhitakerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1848
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hall v. . YountsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Seymour v. IvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1878
- Saunders v. BrosiusSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Uhl v. MaioranoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Taylor v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.The Superior Court of New York City · 1884