Viewing page 244 of 260

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

person claimed it, before the commencement of this suit. It had been purchased by the Govt:- in open market. There is no evidence that any demand had been made for the horse, such demand is alleged in the Declaration, but not proved. There is no evidence that the horse was injured in any way & no evidence showing the value of the use of the horse.

2- The rule of damages upon which the jury found their verdict must have been an improper one. The plaintiff is entitled only to be paid what he lost & that was a horse worth $75. [[crossed out]] he could have purchased another horse [[\crossed out]] in July 1863. This with interest is the extent of the loss, for with the $75. he could have purchased another horse & had the use of it from that time to this. There is no reason why another rule should be adopted in an action of Detinue than in an action of Trover or Replevin, which is the value of the property. 2 Parsons on Contracts. 472.473.-

It is true damages to the property, if damaged in the possession of the defendant may be recovered, if proved, but not the value of the use of the property even if proved. For if such a rule were adopted a plaintiff might get the value of his property several times over. Even in this case it might not have been difficult to prove if attempted, that the use of a horse was worth at least fifty cents per day & if the deft were liable for this during the time it was lost he would have a bill of 5 or 600 dollars to pay.