
    Edwin S. Woodborne v. John F. Scarborough.
    'The defendant, under color of orders of attachment, took certain books of account and the accounts therein contained belonging to the plaintiff, and returned on the orders of attachment that he had attached the books and accounts as the property of the defendant in attachment. Subsequently, under an order of the court, he delivered them to the receiver appointed in the attachment suits, who collected the amount due on the accounts, and paid the same to the attaching creditors. Held: That there was no error in allowing the plaintiff to recover of the defendant the amount collected on the accounts with interest from the time of collection.
    Error to the court of common pleas of Harrison county. Reserved in the district court.
    The original action was instituted by Scarborough against Woodborne to recover damages for the taking and conversion by the latter of certain books of account and the accounts therein contained belonging to the former.
    The property was taken by Woodborne under color of several writs of attachment held by him as sheriff against George Goodwin, who had previously sold and assigned the books and the accounts to the plaintiff, Scarborough. The defendant, Woodborne, returned upon the writs of attachment that he had attached the books and accounts as the property of Goodwin; and subsequently under an order oi the court, he delivered the same to the receiver appointed in the attachment suits. The receiver collected the accounts and after satisfying the costs and expenses paid the balance to the attaching creditors.
    On the trial the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury “ that if they found, on the issues joined, for the plaintiff, he was entitled to recover only the value ‘of. the books-containing the accounts, and not for the value of the accounts contained in the books.” This instruction the corn’t refused, but instructed the jury, “ that if they found, on the-issues joined, in favor of the plaintiff, he was entitled to recover the value of the accounts, estimating the same at their actual value at the time the books were attached, less the cost and expense of collecting the same.”
    To the refusal of the court to give the instruction asked¡ and to the instruction as given, the defendant excepted.
    The jury found for the plaintiff and assessed his damages-at $877.00.
    The amount of the verdict was somewhat less than the amount collected by the receiver, adding interest from the time of collection.
    The defendant moved for a new trial, on the grounds of misdirection to the jury, and that the verdict was against the evidence. The court overruled the motion and rendered judgment on the verdict.
    The object of the present petition in error is to obtain a reversal of the judgment.
    
      8. B. Shotwell for plaintiff in error :
    There is nowhere in the whole case the slightest pretencethat Woodborne actually converted the books much less any part of the accounts, either by a taking, as in trespass, an assumption of ownership, or illegally using or misusing or refusal to deliver on demand. And the authorities show that, in any event, the plaintiff is -only entitled to compensation for the actual injury done him by the defendant, and that his recovery is limited to the natural and proximate consequences of Woodborne’s illegal act, not measured by some other person’s act. Now this is Woodborne’s wrong if anything.
    The question is, What shall be the rule of damages against him? Will the court require him to respond for the full value of the books and accounts, the same as though he had actually collected and appropriated the same to his own use, or shall he respond commensurate with and equivalent to the actual injury done by him alone. The law says the latter, but the court below charged the former, and, as we think, therein erred.
    As to what are damages and what is the true rule of damages, see the following authorities: 2 Blackstone, 438; Feuer v. Beale, 1 Lord Raym. 692; Co. Litt. 257 a; Rockwood v. Allen, 7 Mass. 254; Bussy v. Donaldson, 4 Dallas, 206; Dexter v. Spear, 4 Mason, 115; Walker v. Smith, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 152; Sedgwick on Damages, side p. 32, 506; Cincinnati v. Evans, 5 Ohio St. 603.
    The verdict is against the evidence.
    
      J. M. Estep for defendant in error:
    These books and the accounts therein were things of value to us, and without possession of the books it was impossible for us to make their value available.
    Our damages extended not only to the value of the books, as books, but also to the value of the accounts they contained. Clowes v. Hawley, 12 Johns. 484; Murray v. Burling, 10 Johns. 174; Kortright v. Buffalo Com. Bank, 20 Wend. 91; Code, secs. 194, 207, 201; 2 Handy, 202.
    The responsibility of the officer for wrongfully taking-books of account and choses in action, or personal property, is the same. The books of account and claims are to be appraised at thevr value, as was done in this case — their real value, looking to the amount of the claims, the solvency of the debtors, etc. Code, sec. 198.
    These books and claims were afterward delivered, under the order of the court, to a receiver. But as the original! taking was wrongful, this, surely, cannot affect Searborough’s rights. He was no party to the proceedings of the creditors and could make no objection. They assumed the risk. This order was a matter of course when asked for. Scarborough had brought his suit for the value of the claims, and had nothing to do with the subsequent proceedings of the creditors in their cases against Goodwin.
    Woodborne having assumed wrongfully to take Scarborough’s accounts and collect them, as things of vahae, the latter, as he liad a legal right to do, elects to abandon the -claims and sue for their value. Acheson v. Miller, 2 Ohio St. 203.
    Having wrongfully taken these claims and collected and -converted them to his own use, the rule of damages as laid down in 2 Greenleaf’s Ev. sec. 649, note, as the lowest rule, would be the amount collected and interest. The ruling of the court below was too favorable to Woodborne, in allowing the jury to deduct from the value of the claims, as proved, the cost and expense of collecting them.
    2. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. 15 Ohio St. 451.
   White, J.

The only question of law in this case relates to the charge of the court as to the rule of damages, and, in considering the practical application of the charge to the facts, it is to be noticed that the amount of the verdict does not exceed the sum collected by the receiver with interest from the time of collection.

The orders of attachment required the defendant, as sheriff, to attach the lands, tenements, goods, chattels, stocks, or interest in stocks, rights, credits, moneys, and effects of Goodwin, the defendant in the attachment suits, in the county.

The returns upon the orders of attachment were required to show what property had been attached in pursuance of the -orders.

In case of the appointment of a receiver the statute provides that he shall take possession of all notes, due bills, books of account, accounts, and all other evidences of debt that have been taken by the sheriff or other officer, as the property of the defendant in attachment, and shall proceed' to settle and collect the same.”

Where a receiver is not appointed it is provided that the* sheriff or other officer attaching the property shall have all the powers and perform all the duties of a receiver.”

The defendant Woodborne, having returned upon the-orders of attachment that he had attached the books and accounts as the property of Goodwin, their delivery to and the collection of the accounts by the receiver followed as a legal consequence from the facts thus shown by his returns.

The plaintiff below was no party to the attachment suits,, and no order made or issued in these cases can be relied on to defeat or impair his rights for the wrongful seizure or conversion of his property.

It is unnecessary to consider what would have been the rule of damages if nothing more had been done than the taking of the books.

In this case the accounts were collected from the debtors,, and the collection is directly referable to the wrongful act of the defendant in taking and returning the accounts as the-property of the defendant in attachment. And it seems to us it does not lie with the defendant to say that the plaintiff' might still enforce the collection of the accounts against the debtors, nor that he should seek his remedy against the receiver, or the creditors to whom the money has been paid.

As to the claim that the verdict is against the evidence, it is sufficient to say, there have been two verdicts in favor of the plaintiff, and that from an examination of the evidence-we find no error in the refusal of the court on this ground to-grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Brinkeehoff, C.J., and Scott, Welch, and Day, JJ., con curred.  