We are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, reserving to defendant Martin the right to comply with the judgment within 60 days from the filing of the remittitur in the court below. The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to her costs and disbursements on appeal.
Christianson, Birdzell, Robinson, and Bronson, JJ., concur.
SCHNITZ BROTHERS a co-partnership, consisting of Sam Schnitz and Ben Schnitz, Respondents, v. BOLLES & ROGERS COMpANY, a corporation, Appellant.
(186 N. W. 96.)
Evidence—testimony of market value based on reports neither offered nor proved trustworthy is incompetent.
1. Testimony of the market value of hides in the Chicago market on a certain day, which is based upon current reports of a publishing company neither offered in evidence nor proved to be representative and trustworthy, is incompetent.
Evidence—evidence of individual sales before and after tendered delivery is incompetent, unless under conditions sufficiently similar to show market value.
2. Where market value is sought to be established, evidence of individual sales of hides upon dates anterior and posterior to the time of a tendered delivery is incompetent unless shown to be at a time sufficiently near and under conditions sufficiently similar to aid in the determination of the market value at the date of the tendered delivery.
{{c|Opinion filed Dec. 14, 1921. Rehearing denied Jan. 3, 1922,
Action in District Court, Stark County, Crawford, J., to recover damages for failure to accept hides pursuant to a contract of sale. Defendant has appealed from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor.
Reversed and new trial granted.
