Davis v. Jackson

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case involves a controversy as to whether certain fixtures were included in a sale by appellants, Eugene L. Davis and Jane A. Davis, his wife, (Davis), to appellees, Charles Jackson and Edith P. Jackson, his wife, (Jackson) . Davis owned land in Anne Arundel County purchased by Jackson. The contract by its terms included “all attached fixtures [then] part of said premises.” After settlement Jackson found that 800 lineal feet of fence, a pool heater, and a water conditioning plant were missing.

They sued and obtained judgment in the amount of $1,-696.50. Davis here complains (1) that the court erred in finding that the chattels were wrongfully removed from the premises by them, and (2) that the court erred in assessing damages, contending that the court awarded damages not based upon the fair market value of the property at the time of the conversion, but upon the cost of new chattels. Under Maryland Rule 886 when a case has been tried by the lower court without a jury, as this case was, “the judgment of the lower court will not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous and due regard will be given to the opportunity of the lower court to judge the ⁶⁷⁰ credibility of the witnesses.” In this case there was evidence from which the trial judge could conclude, as he did conclude, that the items in question were fixtures which were wrongfully removed by the sellers. On the issue of damages, Davis complains because Mr. Jackson was permitted to testify as to the value of the removed water conditioner and because two other witnesses were permitted to testify as to the cost of new equipment.

The trial judge in entering judgment said: “[W]e think there isn’t any question but that these buyers are entitled to be compensated for this equipment which was improperly removed by the sellers. The question then occurs as to how much. According to the Court’s figures the testimony shows the total replacement value of these items to be $1885.00. We think that a depreciation figure has to be allowed, and therefore, we do allow one.

We do say, however, that one who sells something and then takes it away, does so at his peril. It must have had some value to him, or there must have been some life