In Howe v. Johnston, 220 App Div 170, 221 NYS 516, the plaintiffs had argued that although the repairs done to their car did in fact restore the vehicle to its previous condition, they alleged that there exists in the minds of "would-be purchasers of second-hand cars, a prejudice against such as have been subjected to accidental injury, which prejudice diminishes their market value from what it would otherwise have been." (220 App Div at 171) The Fourth Department in the Howe case, relying upon a 1907 Appellate Division, Third Department, case, stated: "The precise question here presented has been persuasively considered by the Third Department in Mendleson v. Van Rensselaer (118 App. Div. 516, 103 NYS 578). There a carriage, injured in an accident, had been fully repaired; the plaintiffs sought to recover, in addition to the cost of repairs, the difference between its value before the accident and after it had been repaired, upon the theory that 'a wagon that had gone through an accident would not sell for as much as it otherwise would.' In disposing of this contention, the court tersely stated the reason for holding otherwise in the following language: 'As to the carriage, aside from the repairs, the alleged damage was purely fanciful and not worthy of consideration.' " (Id. at 171-172)