Currie v. Nation
| Decision Date | 14 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 223.) |
| Parties | CURRIE et al. v. NATION. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Desha County; W. B. Sorrells, Judge.
Action by Herman C. Currie and others against J. A. Nation. From judgment awarding insufficient relief, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
P. L. Neville, of McGehee, and Coleman & Gantt, of Pine Bluff, for appellants.
X. O. Pindall, of McGehee, for appellee.
This action was brought by the appellants against the appellee to recover damages which the appellants alleged were caused them by the refusal of the appellee to deliver 50 bales of cotton, which they allege he had agreed to sell to the firm of Alex Strauss & Son, a partnership engaged in the business of buying and selling cotton at Pine Bluff, Ark. They set up that the contract was evidenced by a writing as follows:
They allege that the cotton was ready for delivery about the 12th of November, 1919, but that appellee, after demand therefor, refused to deliver the same to appellants to their damage in the sum of $7,500, for which they prayed judgment.
The appellee answered and admitted that he signed the writing above set forth and states that at the time the agreement was entered into it was understood between the parties that the appellee should have a reasonable time to ascertain whether 40 cents a pound was a fair market price for the cotton mentioned in the writing, and if in appellee's judgment the price specified was not reasonable, the tentative agreement was not to be effective. The appellee denied all other material allegations of the complaint. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the appellant Currie in the sum of $1,250, from which judgment is this appeal.
The motion for a new trial alleges six grounds for setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial, and among them No. 4, "that the verdict is inadequate." The appellants abandon here all other grounds of the motion for a new trial. Therefore the only question presented on this appeal is whether or not the undisputed testimony showed that the verdict was inadequate; or, to put the question in another form, was there any evidence to warrant the jury in finding for appellants only in the sum of $1,250?
The memorandum does not specify any particular day when the cotton was to be delivered, nor does the oral testimony show that any day was fixed for the delivery of the cotton. The undisputed testimony shows that on October 24, 1919, the appellee sold 33 bales of cotton to another, and thus put it out of his power to comply with his contract with appellants. The contract was to deliver the cotton on the cars at Watson, Ark. The undisputed testimony shows that the market value of cotton at Watson and Pine Bluff was the same. The measure of the appellants' damages was the difference between the contract price of 40 cents per pound and the market value of the cotton at the time and place where it should have been delivered. See Ark. Short Leaf Lbr. Co. v. McInturf, 134 Ark. 284, 203 S. W. 1047. The appellants concede that the 24th of October, 1919, the date evidencing the first breach of the contract, is the time when the measure of damages should be ascertained. The appellee testified that on the 24th day of October, 1919, the cotton contemplated by the contract was worth 65 to 70 cents per pound. Witness Downs testified that it was worth from 75 to 80 cents; Alex Strauss that it was worth from 68 to 75 cents; C. T. Hankins that it was worth from 68 to 73 cents; J. T. White that it was worth 70 cents; S. L. Mass that it was worth from 70 to 75 cents; W. B. Eddins that it was worth from 68 to 75 cents; and E. L. Madding that it was worth 75 cents.
There was testimony tending to prove that on the 24th day of October, 1919, 33 bales of the first cotton grown on the appellee's place at Belcoe Lake, which was of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial