the highest market value between the conversion and the verdict gives him, and gives him, too, at the expense of the defendant, who may possibly, but not probably, dispose of the property at that value, and thus escape without loss, but who will very likely never receive the price which this rule entitles the owner to recover from him. This doctrine punishes the defendant, and accords to the owner more than fair compensation for his loss. The cases which enunciate the rule that the owner of property of fluctuating value may recover the highest market price within a reasonable time after the conversion are numerous. Gallagher v. Jones, 129 U. 8. 193, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 335; Baker v. Drake, 53 N. Y. 211; Gruman v. Smith, 81 N. Y. 25; Wright v. Bank, 110 N. Y. 237, 18 N. E. Rep. 79; Brewster v. Van Liew, 119 IIL 561, 8 N. E. Rep. 842; Ball v. Campbell, 30 Kan. 180, 2 Pac. Rep. 165; Page v. Fowler, 39 Cal. 412.
The rule fixed by our statute, as amended in 1885, will work out absurd results. If suit for conversion be brought immediately after the conversion, and prosecuted with all possible dispatch, the plaintiff may recover the highest market price on the very day of trial, although, from an overcrowded calendar or insufficient judicial facilities, the trial of the cause may be delayed for a period of several years, and notwithstanding the fact that continually from the time of the conversion down to the day of trial, when it suddenly increases in.value, the property has been worth much less than when it was taken, and, on the other hand, if the value of the converted property should rise to the highest point so soon after the conversion that the plaintiff would have no opportunity to purchase like property at the value of the converted property when converted, yet, if the owner should unreasonably delay the commencement or the prosecution of his action, he could recover only the value at the time of the taking, although it will not afford him full remuneration, and although in justice he is more entitled to the highest market value in the latter case, where it is denied to him, than in the former case, where it is awarded to him, and although, further, there is no connection between his diligence or want of diligence in prosecuting his suit and indemnity for his loss. In the first case the statutory rule works injustice to the defendant, and in the latter case to
