CIVIL remedies; measure of damages. 189 



But the general rule that the plaintiff is confined to his legal 

 interest is applicable to working animals where he had re- 

 ceived them in pledge under an express contract to sell them 

 and account for the proceeds, and the original owner had 

 ceased to work them, and no longer intended to do so — the 

 plaintiff having no absolute ownership nor any right to work 

 the teams.^*^ 



Where the owner of horses attached had to hire others to 

 do the work of those taken, in order to perform a previous 

 contract, it was held that this expense might be recovered.^*® 

 But, in an action of trespass for wrongfully carrying away 

 the plaintiff's mule and mare while he was engaged in farm- 

 ing, it was held that damages resulting therefrom to his farm- 

 ing operations were too remote to be recovered.^®'^ In 

 another case, it was held that the measure of damages for the 

 seizure of exempt horses at a time when others could not be 

 procured to cultivate crops, was the damage to the crop if 

 that exceeded the value of their use, but, if others could have 

 been procured, the measure of damages would be the value of 

 their use during the time of detention, the court adding, 

 "The last measure might not be the correct rule for a long 

 period of detention." ^*^ 



A bona Me purchaser of stolen animals sold in market overt 

 cannot, in answer to a claim for them by the original owner 

 after the conviction of the thief, counter-claim for the cost of 



was said: "Cases are cited wherein it is held that the value of the prop- 

 erty with interest was the measure of recovery. Such a rule would afiford 

 full compensation in instances where the use of which the party was de- 

 prived had no value, or its value did not exceed the interest allowed. In 

 many cases, and especially where work animals were the subject of the 

 controversy, a different rule has been applied." 



See, also, Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 102 Mich. 635; Allen v. Fox, 

 51 N. Y. 562; Williams v. Phelps, 16 Wis. 80; Farrar v. Eash, 6 Ind. 

 App. 238. 



^^ Johnson v. Bailey, 17 Colo. 59. 



™ State V. McKeon, 25 Mo. App. 667. 



'" Street v. Sinclair, 71 Ala. no. 



"' Steel V. Metcalf, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 313- 



