Smith v. Griffith, 133 N.Y. 193 (1892)
The price obtained in a bona fide private sale of personal property is admissible as evidence of the property’s value, even if it’s not conclusive, especially when the seller had an incentive to obtain the highest possible price.
Summary
Smith sued Sheriff Griffith for selling goods under execution that Smith claimed to own via a bill of sale. The sheriff argued the goods were the property of A.C. Smith & Co. The central issue concerned the value of the goods, which were described as shopworn books and stationery. The defendant, the sheriff, attempted to introduce evidence of the price the judgment creditors obtained when they resold the goods after purchasing them at the execution sale. The trial court excluded this evidence. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that evidence of the price obtained at a bona fide private sale is admissible as some evidence of value, especially when the seller had an incentive to maximize the sale price.
Facts
Plaintiff Smith claimed ownership of goods (books, stationery, etc.) in a store via a bill of sale from A.C. Smith & Co.
Judgment creditors of A.C. Smith & Co. had the defendant, Sheriff Griffith, levy on and sell the goods under execution.
The goods were mostly old, shopworn stock.
The judgment creditors bought most of the goods at the execution sale and resold them in Syracuse and Utica.
Procedural History
The plaintiff won a verdict at the Circuit Court.
The General Term affirmed the judgment.
The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the price obtained at a subsequent private sale of personal property by a judgment creditor who purchased the property at an execution sale is admissible as evidence of the property’s value in an action against the sheriff for conversion.
Holding
Yes, because the price obtained in a bona fide private sale, where the seller had an incentive to obtain the highest price, is relevant and admissible as some evidence of the property’s value.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the market price of property is the general price for which it may be bought and sold. Evidence of an actual, bona fide sale tends to prove or establish a market price and is therefore some evidence of value, even if not conclusive. The court stated, “It seems plain, however, that proof of the price obtained at an actual sale made bona fide, and not a sale which was in any way forced, would tend in the direction of proving or establishing a market price, and hence would be some evidence of the value of the property sold.” The court emphasized that the judgment creditors (the sellers) had every motivation to obtain the best possible price for the goods. The court distinguished this situation from forced sales or sales where the seller lacked a genuine incentive to maximize price. The court noted the fact that the goods were sold a short distance and within a reasonable timeframe of the conversion, thus strengthening the relevance of the evidence. The court emphasized that the admissibility of the price paid in a private sale has been considered competent in New York for many years and does not require the sale to be at auction to be admissible. The court cited Hoffman v. Conner, 76 N.Y. 121, noting that what a party paid for property is some evidence of its value. Evidence of the price obtained at a private sale is evidence of an actual transaction between parties interested in the price of the article, the one to get the highest and the other to pay the lowest price for the property, and the fact that these diverse interests agreed upon a price was, in the nature of the question, some evidence of the value of the property sold.