
    SWARTZ v. ROSSEAU.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 24, 1908.)
    Tbover and Conversion (§ 40*)—Evidence—Sufficiency.
    Where,- in an action for the conversion of stock, it appeared that the stock fluctuated in value, but the evidence nowhere disclosed what the value of the stock was at the time of conversion or within a reasonable time thereafter, the proof was insufficient to sustain judgment for damages.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trover and Conversion, Cent. Dig. § 242; Dec. Dig. § 40.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
    Action by Rena Swartz against Louis Rosseau. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and SEA-BURY, JJ.
    *For other cases see same topic & § numbek in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
      Robert Stewart, for appellant.
    Bennett E. Siegelstein, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff has recovered a judgment for $126 against the defendant as damages for the alleged conversion of'certain shares of stock. The evidence showed that the stock fluctuated in value, but nowhere discloses what the value of the stock was at the time of the alleged conversion or within a reasonable time thereafter. This defect in proof requires the reversal of this judgment.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.  