
    (September 3, 1921.)
    CLARK COX, Respondent, v. CRANE CREEK SHEEP COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant.
    [200 Pac. 678.]
    Damage to Property — Evidence—Proof of Agency.
    1. The declarations of one assuming to act as agent are not admissible to prove his agency.
    2. In actions for damages to property witnesses, if permitted to state the gross amount of damages, should first be required to state the items of damage and such other facts upon which their estimates are based as will enable the jury to make their own estimates and form their own conclusions as to the damages sustained.
    APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Boise County. Hon. Charles F. Reddoeh, Judge,
    Action for damages for trespass of sheep. Judgment for
    plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
    
      Reversed.
    
    Martin & Cameron, for Appellant.
    “The court should compel witnesses to particularize and specify the items of damage and not permit lump sum estimates. The jury must determine the amount of damages and the statement by a witness of his conclusion as to a lump sum furnishes no basis for calculation by the jury.” (McGuire v. Post Falls Lumber Co., 23 Ida. 608, 131 Pac. 654; McKissick v. Oregon Short Line By. Co., 13 Ida. 195, 89 Pac. 629; Pacific Livestock Co. v. Murray, 45 Or. 103, 76 Pae. 1079; Hatch Bros. Co. v. Black, 25 Wyo. 109, 165 Pac. 518.)
    “In an action for trespass by sheep and cattle, statements of persons herding them that they belonged to defendant were inadmissible, being hearsay and not registered within that exception to the hearsay rule.” (Surbaugh v. Butter-field, 44 Utah, 446, 140 Pae. 757.)
    D. L. Rhodes, for Respondent.
    A witness who is qualified after detailing the various items of damage may then give his opinion as to the aggregate amount thereof. (Boseborough v. Whittington, 15 Ida. 100, 96 Pac. 437; Blagen v. Thompson, 23 Or. 239, 31 Pac. 647, 18 L. R. A. 315; Planters’ Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 77 Ark. 27, 7 Ann. Cas. 55, 90 S. W. 283; McKissick v. Oregon Short Line By. Co., 13 Ida. 195, 89 Pac. 629.)
    Where there is sufficient evidence, if uncontradieted, to sustain the verdict, it should not be set aside. (Darry v. Cox, 28 Ida. 519, 155 Pac. 660; Sweeten v. Ezell, 30 Ida. 154, 163 Pac. 612; Davenport v. Burke, 30 Ida. 599, 167 Pae. 481.)
    
      Prima facie evidence of the ownership of the sheep having been made, the statements of the herders in charge of the sheep were admissible in evidence against the appellant. (Henderson v. Coleman, 19 Wyo. 183, 115 Pac. 439, 1136; Kelly v. King Tung Benev. Assn., 2 Cal. App. 460, 84 Pac. 321;_ Modoc Gold Mining Co. v. Skiles, 13 Colo. App. 293, 57 Pac. 190; Lemcke v. A. L. Funk & Co., 78 Wash. 460, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 23, 139 Pae. 234; Hope Mining Co. v. Burger, 37 Cal. App. 239, 174 Pae. 932; 2 C. J. 939; Chittenden v. King Shoe Co., 38 Colo. 187, 88 Pac. 183; Gods-
      
      mark v. Bennett’s Estate, 52 Colo. 198, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1266, 120 Pac. 151; Union Oil Go. v. Stewart, 158 Cal. 149, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 567, 110 Pac. 313; Waldner v. Bowdon State Bank, 13 N. D. 604, 3 Ann. Cas. 847, 102 N. W. 169; 2 R. C. L. 250; 4 C. J. 977.)
   DUNN, J. —

This action was brought by respondent against appellant to recover $700 damages which respondent claims to have suffered by appellant’s grazing its sheep on 320 acres of land owned by respondent in Boise county. The case was tried before the court with .a jury and a verdict returned in favor of respondent for $650, for which amount judgment was rendered, together with costs amounting to $75.50. Appeal was taken from said judgment.

Appellant specifies numerous errors, only two of which it will be necessary to notice. In attempting to prove ownership of the sheep that did the damage claimed respondent offered evidence as to the brand with which said sheep were marked and also the testimony of certain witnesses to the effect that they had talked with the herders of said sheep and that said herders had stated that appellant was the-owner. The herders were not called to testify. Evidence of the brand was properly admitted, but it was not competent for witnesses to testify as to what the herders had said about the ownership of the sheep. This is so well settled as to require no citation of authority. The admission of this evidence will require a reversal of the judgment.

Appellant also complains of the testimony given by certain witnesses as to the damage caused by said sheep. They were permitted to testify to lump sums as such damages without stating any facts upon which such estimates were based. (McGuire v. Post Falls Lbr. & Mfg. Co., 23 Ida. 608, 131 Pac. 654; McKissick v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 13 Ida. 195, 89 Pac. 629; Pacific Livestock Co. v. Murray, 45 Or. 103, 76 Pac. 1079; Hatch Bros. Co. v. Black, 25 Wyo. 109, 165 Pac. 518.) No testimony was given from which the jury could determine the damages apart from the conclusions of these witnesses as to the aggregate amount. The jury were not informed what was the condition of the pasturage before the sheep grazed over it, nor the extent of the territory grazed over, nor the reasonable value of such pasturage at that time and place. The evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict.

Judgment is reversed and a new trial granted. Costs ' awarded to appellant.

Rice, C. J., and McCarthy and Lee, JJ., concur.

Budge, J., did not sit at the hearing or take any part in the opinion.  