Harrington v. Blohm
| Decision Date | 04 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | (No. 222.) |
| Citation | 206 S.W. 316 |
| Parties | HARRINGTON v. BLOHM. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Arkansas County; Thos. C. Trimble, Judge.
Action by C. W. Blohm against John Lyle Harrington. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Jno. L. Ingram, of Stuttgart, for appellant.
Geo. C. Lewis, of Stuttgart, for appellee.
This cause was tried in the court below on an agreed statement of facts, from which we copy the following controlling recitals: The parties litigant contracted in writing for the cultivation of 75 acres in rice, and, pursuant to this contract, "the plaintiff entered upon the land described in the contract, and plowed and seeded 75 acres of said land to rice, and did other work in connection with growing a rice crop, all of a reasonable value of $375"; that, in order to successfully raise a rice crop, it is necessary to drill a well and install a large amount of expensive machinery of sufficient capacity and power to keep the land sown in rice flooded with water all during the growing season, and this the defendant agreed to do, and that said pumping plant, in order to make a crop, should be equipped and ready for operation not later than June 1st of the crop year; that the defendant failed to install the pumping machinery on said land until in August of said year, and too late to bring to maturity the crops seeded on said land; that a fair average crop of rice which should have been and would have been grown on said 75 acres of land, if same had been properly irrigated, is 50 bushels per acre, or 3,750 bushels, such having been the average yield of neighboring farms for that season, and that one-half thereof would have belonged to the plaintiff; that the fair market value of said rice at maturity was and is $2 per bushel; that, because of defendant's refusal to install a proper well and irrigating machinery by June 1st, plaintiff was able to grow and mature only 150 bushels of rice; that rice growing is by far the most profitable agricultural industry in that part of Arkansas county in which said land is situated, and that the prospect of growing a rice crop was the primary reason which induced plaintiff to enter into the lease contract in question, and that the growing of other crops was merely incidental; that in entering into said lease contract, and expending his time, labor, and money in planting said crop, plaintiff relied upon defendant's agreement to install the necessary well and pumping machinery, and would not otherwise have entered into said lease or have attempted to grow said crop, and could not procure water elsewhere; that it would have cost plaintiff $850 to grow, harvest, thresh, and market said crop, and that his net damage is $2,900; that the capacity of said well, when finally completed, was sufficient to irrigate the land sown in rice; that defendant contracted for a well and pump on said premises with the Layne & Bohler Company, on February 17, 1917; that said company is considered a reliable concern, and has put down most of the wells in the rice district of Arkansas county; that he contracted for a boiler and fixtures on March 24, 1917; that he had the engine when the lease contract was entered into, and that he used his best endeavors to get said well and machinery installed before June 1st of said year, and that the failure to do so was no fault of defendant.
Upon consideration of this testimony, the court rendered judgment for plaintiff for $2,690, being the amount sued for, less an offset of $210, and this appeal has been duly prosecuted.
Appellant contends he is not liable in this case for two reasons: First, that, if appellee's theory as to said damages is correct, then appellant is protected against them by the contract; second, because the damages sued for are remote and speculative.
The first defense is based upon the following clause of the contract:
The contract is a lengthy one, and covers several pages of the brief, and other portions of it prescribe certain reciprocal duties in the way of furnishing wood and coal and oil and twine and other essentials, and provides for the employment of an engineer.
The contract does provide that "the first party is to be held in no way liable for the lack of water owing to accidents or deficiencies to the wells or other machinery, or for any other reason whatsoever." But we cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial