
    Thomas Kennedy versus Samuel Whitwell et al.
    
    In trover, the value of the article at the time of the conversion, with interest from that time to the time of the trial, is the measure of damages; and the facts, that before the conversion, the plaintiff, as vendee, paid the defendant for the artinl», and the defendant, before the trial, resold it at an advanced price, do not ,a<¿e case out of the rule.
    Trover for forty barrels of gin sold by the defendants to the plaintiff, on the 22d of February, 1826, at the rate of about 30 cents a gallon. On the 22d of March the plaintiff paid the price and demanded the gin, but the defendants refused to deliver it; and on the 15th of June this action was commenced. On the 11th of November, which was before the trial, the defendants resold the gin for about 46 cents a gallon, the terms of sale being cash. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed damages in a sum equal to the value of the gin on the 22d of March, the time of the conversion, with interest from that time to the time of trial.
    
      March 22d.
    
    
      March 26th.
    
    
      F. Dexter contended,
    that as the vendee had paid the money for the article sold, and the vendor refused to deliver it, the vendee was entitled to the rise in value of the article ; that he might take as the measure of damages, either the value at the time of the conversion, or the value at the time of the trial, as in the case of contracts for replacing stock ; and as the article had been resold on the 11th of November, the price then obtained, with interest, was the value at the time of the trial. 1 Carr. & Payne, 625 ; 2 Barn. & Cressw. 624 ; 3 Cowen, 82 ; 2 East, 211 ; 2 Taunt. 257; 3 Wheat. 204.
    
      W. Simmons, in support of the verdict,
    cited 1 Burr. '31; 3 Dane’s Abr. 194; 3 Campb. 477; 2 Johns. R. 280; 3 Stark. Ev. 1503.
   Per Curiam.

We see no reason for departing from the rule which we think has been invariably practised upon in this State, that in actions of trover, the value of the article sued for at the time of the conversion is to fix the damages.

Judgment according to verdict. 
      
       See Baker v. Wheeler, 8 Wendell, 508; Whitehouse v. Atkinson, 3 Carr & Payne, 344. The rule of damages is a question of law. The jury asaer i»in the quantum according to that rule. Baker v. Wheeler, ubi supra
      
     