
    David Haan, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    April, 1901.)
    Damages — Proof of value — Experts — Sale of damaged article for a nominal price.
    Evidence of the price paid for a wagon is some proof of its value, when fortified by other evidence that the price was reasonable.
    A person who has bought four wagons and sold some, during eight years devoted.to a business requiring the continual use of a wagon, is competent to testify to their value.
    The owner of a wagon, who seeks damages for its destruction by a collision, may testify that a wheelwright advised him that it could not be repaired, as such proof affords some evidence that he did not act improvidently in selling the wagon for a nominal sum.
    ¡Appeal from judgment rendered by the justice of the Municipal Court of the city of New York for the fifth district in favor of the plaintiff. Action for negligence.
    G. Glenn Worden, for appellant.
    David W. Rockmore, for respondent.
   Bischoff, P. J.

The single question presented upon this appeal relates to the sufficiency of the evidence given to prove the amount of damage sustained by the plaintiff, through the injury caused to his wagon by the collision described.

The defendant adduced no proof upon the subject and there is, therefore, no question as to the weight of evidence touching this point, if the plaintiff’s evidence is to be viewed as sufficient in law to support the recovery.

Evidence of the price paid for the ivagon was some proof of its value, if fortified by other evidence of the reasonableness of the payment, and, to show the reasonable value, the plaintiff was permitted to give his opinion, after preliminary proof to the effect that he had bought four wagons, and had sold some, during eight years devoted to a business which called for the continual use of a wagon.

We cannot say, as matter of law, that this preliminary proof was insufficient to show the possession of some actual knowledge by the plaintiff as to the value of wagons of this kind, and the reception of his opinion cannot be viewed as erroneous" under the circumstances. Haas v. Green, 7 Misc. Rep. 180. Cross-examination might have weakened this prima facie proof, and better expert opinion might have overthrown it, but, upon the state of the record, we must hold that the justice’s finding of damage is unassailable.

There was no error in the refusal to strike out the plaintiff’s testimony as to what had been told him by the wheelwright when inspecting the wagon with a view, to repairs. The fact that the wheelwright advised the plaintiff that the wagon could not be repaired was some evidence that he did not act improvidently or carelessly when selling it for a nominal sum. In this aspect the evidence was not hearsay, but proof of a fact, and we cannot assume that the justice gave it consideration to any greater extent than it was competent.

Leveetbitt and Clarke, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  