
    Boston Loan Company vs. Henry Myers.
    Suffolk.
    January 13. —17,1887.
    Holmes & Gardner, JJ., absent.
    In an action of replevin of household furniture and a piano, the plaintiff became nonsuit, and returned the property. It appeared that, during the time of the detention, the defendant did not purchase nor have the use of other similar property. The plaintiff asked the judge to instruct the jury, that the defendant’s damages should be fixed at the interest of the money value of the property during the time it was detained. Held, that this request was rightly refused.
    If a bill of exceptions sets forth a request for a ruling which was refused, and does not state the ruling given, and the request for a ruling was rightly refused, it will be presumed that proper instructions were given.
    
      Replevin of a piano and set of parlor furniture. Writ dated November 29,1884. Trial in tbe Superior Court, before Knowlton, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
    The plaintiff became nonsuit, and tbe question of damages to tbe defendant for tbe detention of said goods was submitted to tbe jury. There was evidence tending to show that tbe plaintiff took tbe property on November 29,1884, and held possession of tbe parlor set about two months, when it was returned; and that it kept possession of the piano until tbe day of trial; that tbe defendant bad a daughter who bad used tbe piano for several years to practise upon while taking lessons; that tbe parlor set was in use by tbe family and persons visiting them. Tbe evidence was conflicting as to tbe value of tbe property at tbe time of taking it. Evidence was offered and admitted that tbe rental value of pianos, to men engaged in tbe business of rental of pianos, was from six- to thirty dollars a quarter, according to tbe condition of tbe piano6 and tbe demand for tbe same; that this piano was manufactured about ten years ago, and bad been in use during that period. It appeared that during tbe time of said detention tbe defendant did not purchase nor have tbe use of other similar property.
    The plaintiff asked tbe judge to rule as follows: “ Tbe damages in this case for tbe detention should be fixed at tbe interest of tbe money value of tbe property during tbe time it was detained, and whatever loss or inconvenience was sustained in purchasing property of equal value for use during tbe time of detention.” Tbe judge refused so to rule. Tbe jury, on June 24, 1886, returned a verdict for tbe defendant in tbe sum of $109.59; and tbe plaintiff alleged exceptions.
    
      Q. W. Bartlett, for tbe plaintiff.
    
      J. B. Richardson, for tbe defendant.
   Morton, C. J.

The defendant is entitled to recover as damages such sum as will be a fair indemnity to him for tbe injury be has sustained by reason of tbe unlawful taking and detention of bis property by tbe plaintiff. Stevens v. Tuite, 104 Mass. 828. In this case, the property replevied was household furniture, including a piano; and it appeared that, during tbe time of tbe detention, the defendant did not purchase or hire other similar property. As tbe defendant did not purchase other property, the ruling requested by the plaintiff was equivalent to asking the court to rule that the defendant could only recover as damages the interest on the value of the property. The court rightly refused this ruling, for it is clear that interest on the value of the property is no criterion of the damage sustained by the defendant by reason of being deprived of the use of it. The property was household furniture, in daily use and necessary to his comfort. It is evident that the restoration of the property, with interest on its value, would not furnish an adequate indemnity to the defendant for the wrong done in taking it out of his possession.

In Clark v. Martin, 120 Mass. 543, where a plaintiff in replevin recovered damages for the detention of a horse and buggy attached by the defendant on a writ against a third person, it was held that the jury might award such damages for the detention as' they should be satisfied the use of the property was worth to the plaintiff during the time of the detention, considering the nature and character of the property. A similar rule of damages would apply in the case before us, and it is to be presumed that such rule was adopted by the court, as nothing appears to the contrary.

Exceptions overruled.  