¶1The defendant has no just ground of exception to the rulings and instructions at the trial. The appraisement made according to the agreement of the parties was introduced without objection, and was competent evidence, as between them, of the value of the defendant’s property at the time of the appraisement. The amount for which the plaintiff’s property was sold by auction was competent evidence of its value at the time of sale. Kent v. Whitney, 9 Allen, 62. Campbell v. Woodworth, 20 N. Y. 499. And there was evidence tending to show that it had not depreciated between the dates of the appraisement and *541of the sales by auction. There was therefore sufficient evidence for the jury that the market value of the defendant’s property was not, and that that of the plaintiff’s was, less than the estimate put upon it by the appraisers. The loss sustained by the plaintiff from the breach of the contract, and the measure of the damages which he was entitled to recover, was the difference between the market value of his property and the amount which he would have received for it if the defendant had carried out his bargain; and so the jury were instructed. . Exceptions overruled.
113 Mass. 538
Brigham v. Evans
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 15, 1873
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1873-11-15
<p>In an action for the breach of an agreement for an exchange of property at values to be found by an appraisement, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference between the market value of his property, and the value he would have received in exchange •, and the appraisement made is evidence of the value of the defendant’s property at that time; and the price brought by the plaintiff’s property at a subsequent auction sale, being less than the appraised value, is competent evidence of its value at that time, which, coupled with evidence that it had not depreciated in value in the mean time, will warrant the jury in finding substantial damages.</p>
Relies on Campbell v. . Woodworth
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1873-11-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 1961
17 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →