Rockland County NyArchives Court.....Baker, Dwight Vs. Charles Hart 1889
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ny/nyfiles.htm
************************************************
File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 2, 2008, 11:40 am

Source: Reports Of Cases - New York
Written: 1889

Second Department, May Term, 1889.

DWIGHT B. BAKER and JAMES KEEGAN, Respondents, v. CHARLES HART and JAMES HART, 
Appellants.

Lease of a stone quarry — right of action against one removing stone therefrom - 
measure of damages.

In an action, brought by the lessees of certain lands in the county of Rockland, 
under a lease which gave to them the exclusive right to the demised premises, 
and the sole and exclusive right to quarry and remove stone therefrom during the 
term of ten years, it appeared that the defendants, who were lessees of an 
adjoining lot from the same lessor, entered upon the quarry of the plaintiffs 
and dug out a quantity of stone, cut them and took them to New York.

Upon the trial of the action at the circuit the defendants moved to dismiss the 
complaint on the ground, that the instrument under which the plaintiffs held the 
quarry conveyed to them no title to the stone which they did not take out, and 
only gave them the right to stone which they took out themselves.

Held, that the motion was properly denied.

That the plaintiffs had an interest in all the stone in the quarry, and as that 
was their only source of profit under the lease it gave them a right of action 
for the wrongful conversion of the stone in question by the defendants.

The defendants insisted that the plaintiffs could only recover the value of the 
stone in the quarry.

Held, that the plaintiffs were properly permitted to give evidence of the value 
of the stone after they were cut by the defendants and transported to their 
place of destination, and to recover the damages arising from its increased 
value.

Betts v. Lee (5 Johns., 348); Baker v. Wheeler (8 Wend., 505); Silsbury v. 
McCoon (3 N. Y., 379); Guchenheimer v. Angevine (81 id., 397) followed.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment recovered at the Rockland Circuit, 
which was entered in the office of the clerk of said county on October 15, 1888, 
and from an order entered in the said clerk's office on the 31st day of October, 
1888, denying a motion for a new trial made by the defendants upon the minutes 
of the justice presiding at the trial.

Johnson & Lamb, for the appellants.

Alexander B. Butts and C. P. Hoffman, for the respondents. 
Dykman, J.:

The plaintiffs are lessees of certain lands in the county of Rockland, under a 
lease which gives them the exclusive right to the demised premises and the sole 
and exclusive right to quarry and remove stone therefrom during the term of ten 
years.

The defendants are lessees of an adjoining lot from the same lessor, and they 
entered upon the quarry of the plaintiffs and took out a quantity of stone and 
cut them and took them to New York, and this action was brought for the recovery 
of the value of the stones so taken. The cause was tried at the circuit and a 
verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants have 
appealed from the judgment entered upon the verdict and from the order denying 
the motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court. Upon the trial at the 
circuit the defendants contended against the right of the plaintiffs to recover 
damages for the conversion of the stone in question, because the instrument 
under which they held the quarry conveyed to them no title to stone which they 
did not. take out, and only gave them the right to stone which they took out 
themselves, and a motion was made in the early stage of the trial to dismiss the 
complaint on that ground. That motion was denied, and we think the ruling was 
not erroneous. The defendants were trespassers and wrong-doers, and, as such, 
appropriated the stone to which the plaintiffs had a right. They had an interest 
in all the stone in their quarry, and that was their only source of profit under 
their lease, and such interest gave them a right of action for the wrongful 
conversion of the stone in question by the defendants.

The principal objection of the appellants, however, is lodged against the 
measure of damages adopted by the trial court. The defendants insisted that the 
plaintiffs could only recover the value of the stone in the quarry, while the 
plaintiffs were permitted to give evidence of their value after they were cut by 
the defendants and transported to their place of destination. The charge is not 
printed, but the question is sufficiently presented by exceptions taken during 
the trial and opens a very interesting subject. The liability incurred by the 
wrongful conversion of personal property, and its change in form or value by the 
wrong-doer, is well settled under the common law as it was under the civil law. 
So long as the property retains its original form or substance it belongs to the 
original owner, without reference to its improvement or the enhanced value 
imparted to it by the person guilty of the conversion. Our law, like the Roman 
law, treats those who expend money or labor upon property wrongfully taken by 
them as volunteer servants of the owner. So far the authorities, both English 
and American, seem to be harmonious and in accord with the rule of the civil law 
(Year Books, 5 Hen. 7, fol. 15; 2 Bl. Com., 404; 2 Kent's Com., 363; Betts v. 
Lee, 5 Johns., 348; Baker v. Wheeler, 8 Wend., 505; Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N. Y., 
379; Cuokenheimer v. Angevine, 81 id., 397); and the rule of damages deduced 
from the principles of law is this, as the owner may recover his property in its 
improved condition specifically, he may, therefore, when driven to his action 
for damages, recover its increased value.

There has been some disagreement in our courts, in cases of this character, 
respecting the ruler to be adopted when the identity of the property has been 
destroyed by its conversion into a different species, as where wine is made from 
another's grapes. But even in such cases, and in respect, to such property, the 
only exception to the general rule with us is in favor of an innocent purchaser 
or holder, and there is no distinction in favor of a wrong-doer. He can acquire 
no property in the goods of another by any change wrought in them by his labor 
or skill, provided that the improved article was made from the original 
material. (Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N. Y., 379.)

It follows that the rule of damages adopted at the circuit was correct, and, as 
we find no errors, the judgment and order denying the motion for the new trial 
should be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurred; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Heard and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of New 
York. Marcus T. Hun, Reporter. Volume LIX, 1889, HUN 52. Banks & Company, 
Albany, NY. 1901.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ny/rockland/court/baker768gwl.txt
This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/nyfiles/

File size: 7.3 Kb