Shea v. Hudson

James Shea v. Chester E. Hudson

Shea v. Hudson, 42 N.E. 114 (Mass. 1895)

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: December 4, 1895
Judges: Mobton
Citations: 42 N.E. 114165 Mass. 431895 Mass. LEXIS 14

Cited by 32 1 descriptions by later courts

Headnotes

Testimony by Owner as to Value of Property. In an action for injuries occasioned to a horse and buggy by a collision with a horse and carriage driven by the defendant, the owner of the horse and buggy is presumed to have such a familiarity with them as to know pretty nearly, if not actually, what they are worth, although he does not buy and sell horses or carriages, and may testify to their value before and after the accident.

Summary

Tort, for injuries occasioned to the horse and buggy of the plaintiff by a collision with a horse and carriage driven by the defendant. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Braley, J., the plaintiff was asked by his counsel what was the value of his horse before the accident, and what was the value of his carriage. To these questions the defendant objected, on the ground that the plaintiff had not been shown to be an expert, and thus was not competent to give an opinion on the subject. The judge allowed the plaintiff to answer, and he testified that his horse was worth one hundred and seventy-five dollars before the accident, and his buggy from fifteen to twenty dollars. He then testified that the buggy was practically destroyed, and, subject to the same exception, that the horse, was worth seventy-five dollars after the accident. No evidence was offered to show that the plaintiff had ever bought or sold horses or carriages, or to show any other qualification to enable him to give an opinion as an expert of their value. The plaintiff subsequently described the appearance, age, and weight of the horse, and his gait before and after the accident. There was no other evidence as to the value of the horse or buggy. The judge found for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Mobton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mobton, J.

The question in this case relates to the admis-

sibility of the testimony of the plaintiff, who was the owner, respecting the value of the horse and buggy before and after the accident. Without undertaking to decide that in every case the fact of ownership qualifies a party to testify to the value of or damage to property, we think that the evidence was rightly admitted in the present case. It has been held that the owner of real estate was competent to testify to the damage done to his property by the taking of a part of it for a railroad, and also that his opinion regarding the value of his estate was admissible. Shattuck v. Stoneham Branch Railroad, 6 Allen, 115 . Snow v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 65 Maine, 230. Patch v. Boston, 146 Mass. 52, 57 . Blaney v. Salem, 160 Mass. 303 .

In Mercer v. Pose, 67 N. Y. 56 , the plaintiff was permitted to testify to the value of the services rendered by him, which were the subject of the suit. In other cases parties sufficiently familiar with the property in controversy to express an opinion upon *45 its value have been allowed to do so, though not regarded as experts. Walker v. Boston, 8 Cush. 279 . Shaw v. Charlestown, 2 Gray, 107 , 109. Haskins v. Hamilton Ins. Co. 5 Gray, 432 . Whitman v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 7 Allen, 313 . Reed v. Washington Ins. Co. 138 Mass. 572, 577 .

Ordinarily the owner of a horse aúd buggy may be presumed to have such a familiarity with them as to know pretty nearly, if not actually, what they are worth, although he does not buy and sell horses or carriages.

In Berney v. Dinsmore, 141 Mass. 42 , no question was presented concerning the admissibility of the plaintiff’s opinion respecting the value of the ring. She did not offer to testify to its value. Hxaeptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

("Ordinarily the owner of a horse and buggy may be presumed to have such familiarity with them as to know pretty nearly, if not actually, what they are worth")

Pellegrini v. Another, 94 N.E.3d 439 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017)

Cited by 32 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Ligon v. Brooks196 A. 200 (Del. Super. Ct. 1937)
Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Messenger29 A.2d 653 (Md. 1943)
Menici v. Orton Crane & Shovel Co.285 Mass. 499 (1934)
Smith v. Mine & Smelter Supply Co.88 P. 683 (Utah 1907)
Tubbs v. Mechanics' Insurance108 N.W. 324 (Iowa 1906)
Haycraft v. Adams24 P.2d 1110 (Utah 1933)

Most recent

Pellegrini v. Another94 N.E.3d 439 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017)
Hewi v. Cerrione1980 Mass. App. Div. 26 (1980)
Barber v. State329 A.2d 760 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1974)
London v. Fleischer32 Mass. App. Dec. 60 (1965)
Cofflin v. State186 A.2d 216 (Md. 1962)
Hamilton v. Brown21 Mass. App. Dec. 100 (1961)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Reed v. Wash. Fire & Marine Ins., 138 Mass. 572 (1885)	60
	Patch v. City of Boston, 14 N.E. 770 (Mass. 1888)	40
	Mercer v. Vose, 67 N.Y. 56 (1876)	39
	Blaney v. City of Salem, 35 N.E. 858 (Mass. 1894)	8
	Berney v. Dinsmore, 5 N.E. 273 (Mass. 1886)	5

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list