Lines v. Alaska Commercial Co.

Citations

• 29 Wash. 133
• 69 P. 642
• 1902 Wash. LEXIS 566

Syllabus

<p>CONVERSION — VALUE 03? PROPERTY — OPINION EVIDENCE.</p> <p>In an action to recover the value of a piano converted by defendant to its own use at-Nome, Alaska, a witness who was acquainted with the piano in controversy, and had knowledge of the selling prices of several pianos sold in that locality and the prices asked for others, is competent to testify as to the value of the piano in suit, when the evidence shows that there was no regular sale for pianos in the ordinary commercial way, with a fixed and current value for that1 class of property.</p> <p>SAME-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.</p> <p>In such action, where a witness familiar with the piano which was the subject of controversy was asked “you may answer what in your judgment was an upright piano, stool and cover, standard make and in first class condition and in good tone — what it would be worth in July last year in Nome, Alaska,” and had answered “I should judge about $750 in Nome,” and this was the only evidence of value given, it was not error to deny a motion to charge the jury to return a verdict for nominal damages only, where no objection had been interposed to the question or answer on the ground that the property in controversy was not properly described.</p>