Muenchow v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 14 October 1890
• Citation: 77 Wis. 520,46 N.W. 802
• Parties: MUENCHOW v. ROBERTS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

77 Wis. 520

46 N.W. 802

MUENCHOW

v.ROBERTS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 14, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, La Crosse county.

On April 9, 1883, the parties entered into a contract in writing, under seal, for the sale by the defendant to plaintiff of 300 acres of land in La Crosse county. The plaintiff agreed to raise oats on a specified portion of the land, said to contain 100 acres, in each year, for five years then next ensuing, and to deliver the same to defendant at his elevator in Bangor. It was also agreed that said five crops of oats when so delivered should be full payment for the land. The value of the land is not otherwise specified. The contract gives the plaintiff the possession of the land from its execution, and requires him to pay the taxes thereon from that time. It further provides that when payment therefor is fully made, as aforesaid, the defendant shall convey the land to plaintiff by deed of warranty. This action was brought to recover damages for the entire breach of the contract by the defendant. It was alleged in the complaint that two days after the execution of the contract, and several times thereafter, the defendant refused to allow the plaintiff to enter into possession of the land, and that the defendant has failed to perform the stipulations on his part contained in the contract. There was a controversy on the trial as to whether the plaintiff or the defendant refused to execute the contract, or whether it was rescinded by mutual consent. The jury found for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $500. By so finding they necessarily found that the defendant rescinded the contract without the consent of the plaintiff. It is unnecessary to state the testimony. The rulings of the court on the trial are stated in the opinion. The defendant appeals from a judgment against him pursuant to the verdict.G. E. Prentiss and Bleekman, Tourtellotte & Bloomingdale, for appellant.

Winter, Esch & Winter, for respondent.

LYON, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

On this appeal it is only necessary to consider the question litigated on the trial as to the measure of damages. The court charged the jury, in substance, that the true measure of damages was the difference between the expense of raising the five crops of oats, together with the amount of taxes plaintiff agreed to pay, and the aggregate values of the 300 acres of land, the use of 200 acres thereof, and the fire-wood which plaintiff would have been entitled to take therefrom had he gone into possession of the land; that is to say, on one side of the account the jury were directed to place the value of the land, the value of its use, except the 100 acres, and the value of such fire-wood, and on the other side of the account they were directed to place the probable cost of raising and delivering the...