MEASURE or damages; evidence of value. 165 



later case this rule was not followed and it was held that "the 

 jury are the competent judges of the value of such property, 

 after hearing the evidence as to the particular qualities and 

 properties of the animal." '^*^ And in a still more recent case 

 it is said: "Opinions in regard to the value of dogs which 

 have no standard or marketable value are necessarily fanciful, 

 depending upon the fancy or predilection of the witness, and 

 are not competent. In order to render opinions as to the 

 value of a dog competent it should first be shown that the dog 

 in question is a marketable animal, either belonging to some 

 peculiar breed, or possessing some pecuHar qualities which 

 make him an animal usually vendible, at some proximately 

 regular price. Nothing of the kind was shown here. It was 

 shown that he was a trained farm dog, and it was ofifered to 

 be shown that the witness, who was the plaintif? himself, was 

 acquainted with the value of such dogs and had seen them 

 bought and sold. This fell far short of offering to prove that 

 the dog was a marketable animal or had any market value, 

 which the witness was acquainted with. I am of the opinion 

 therefore that the evidence was properly excluded." ^*^ 



But these latter cases were disapproved of in a Michigan 

 case, where it was said: "It is not necessary that personal 

 property must have a market value in order to render such 

 opinions competent. The value of a horse depends upon his 

 qualities for farming or trotting or family use or for many 

 other kinds of work. Clearly, jurors who were not farmers 

 would not be competent to determine the value of a farm 

 horse simply from a description of the horse, statements of 

 the work he will do and the qualities he possesses. No doc- 

 trine is better settled than that in such case the evidence of 

 farmers who know the value of horses is competent to aid the 

 jury in determining the value. This principle appHes with 



'" Dunlap V. Snyder, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 561. 



=" Brown v. Hoburger, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 525; followed in Smith v. 

 Griswold, 15 Hun ( N. Y.) 273. 



