Naylor v. Floor
Decision Date | 29 January 1918 |
Docket Number | 3096 |
Citation | 170 P. 971,51 Utah 382 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | NAYLOR et al. v. FLOOR |
Appeal from District Court of Salt Lake County, Third District; Hon W. H. Bramel, Judge.
Action by W. S. Naylor and another against Nicholas Floor.
Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.
AFFIRMED.
E. O Leatherwood for appellant.
Booth Lee, Badger & Rich for respondents.
The questions presented by this appeal relate to the sufficiency of the evidence and measure of damages. Plaintiffs are the owners of land in Tooele county, and in the fall of 1915 had a crop of grain growing thereon. In October following the defendant, who is the owner of a band of sheep, permitted them to trespass on plaintiff's said crop and partially destroy it. Plaintiffs brought suit for the recovery of $ 675 as damages. The case was tried to a jury, and a verdict rendered for plaintiffs in the sum of $ 170.62. Judgment was entered accordingly. Defendant appeals, and assigns as error: (1) The refusal of the court to instruct the jury that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict for more than nominal damages; and (2) the court erred in its instruction relating to the measure of damages. These alleged errors will be considered in the order above named.
There is substantial evidence tending to show that plaintiffs, in September, 1915, seeded to wheat sixty-five acres of the land in question; that during October next following the defendant at divers times permitted his sheep to trespass thereon; that ten acres of said land so planted went to grass; that thirteen acres of the wheat was totally destroyed; that twenty-seven acres only produced one-fifth of a normal crop and the remaining fifteen acres produced fourteen or fifteen bushels to the acre, which was about a normal crop; that it cost $ 2.50 per acre to harvest and sack the wheat, and ten cents per bushel to transport same to the nearest market. This was the only expense necessary to be incurred after the wheat was planted, for the reason that it was a dry-farm crop. The plaintiffs harvested 283 bushels from fifty-five acres, and the market value thereof was $ 2.20 per hundredweight or $ 1.32 per bushel at the nearest market.
The foregoing statement, which, as before stated, is supported by substantial testimony, discloses every element and every factor necessary to determine the damage plaintiffs sustained, under the rule declared by the court for determining the damage, which will be considered later on in this opinion. It thus appears we have the number of acres planted (65), the number of acres that went to grass (10), the number of acres totally destroyed (13), the number of acres partially injured, which produced one-fifth of a crop (27), and the number of acres uninjured (15). As appears from the testimony, if the 65 acres planted, less the 10 acres which went to grass, had not been injured by the sheep, the land would probably have produced 14 bushels to the acre, or a total of 770 bushels, but, as plaintiffs could only harvest 283 bushels, there was a loss of the difference between these two amounts, or 487 bushels, lost on account of the injury. This quantity at $ 1.32 per bushel, the market price at the nearest market, amounts to $ 642.84. This sum, less the cost of harvesting and sacking at $ 2.50 per acre, or $ 137.50 for the fifty-five acres, and ten cents a bushel for transporting to market the 487 bushels, or $ 48.70, leaves as net damage to plaintiffs the sum of $ 456.64. The jury rendered a verdict for only $ 170.62. The evidence is ample to sustain the verdict, unless the court erred in its instructions relating to the measure of damages. That question will now be considered.
The instruction assigned as error reads as follows:
Appellant challenges the validity of this instruction, except the first sentence thereof. This sentence, he insists, states the correct rule for measuring the damages in cases of this kind. The remainder of the instruction it is contended, is vicious and in conflict with the well settled law of this state as declared by the decisions of this court. In support of this contention appellant cites a case decided by this court, Lester v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 27 Utah 470, 76 P. 341, 101 Am. St. Rep. 988, 1 Ann. Cas. 761, and quotes the first paragraph of the syllabi, as stating the rule for the measure of damages in this jurisdiction. The language quoted does not, to the fullest extent, reflect the opinion of the court in that case. The paragraph quoted reads as follows:
"The true measure of compensation for injury to or the destruction of growing crops is the value of the crops in the condition they were in at the time of their injury or destruction, and not the market value at the time of maturity or during the market season."
Upon an examination of the opinion, it will be found that the court was dealing with an instruction of the trial court which had been assigned as error, and the opinion must be read with that instruction in view. The trial court in that case gave the following instruction, which was excepted to by appellant:
The instruction, without further explanation or modification, was manifestly erroneous. It left out of consideration entirely the expense incident to maturing, harvesting, and marketing the crop subsequent to the injury complained of. That this court considered these matters material and pertinent to a determination of the damages is manifest upon reading the language of the court in commenting upon the erroneous instructions. In 27 Utah at page 472, 76 P. at page 342 (101 Am. St. Rep. 988, 1 Ann. Cas. 761), the court says:
It is true the court says, "The true measure of compensation is the value of the crops in the condition they were in at the time of their injury, * * * and not the market value at the time of maturity or during the market season," but this must be taken in connection with the other parts of the opinion to which we have referred. In order to determine the value of the crop at the time and place of the injury, it is quite clear that this may be done as suggested by the court in that case, by taking into account the market value when harvested and of the expense incident to placing the crop in a marketable condition after the injury complained of. To contend that the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Redwine v. Fitzhugh
...351, 149 P. 851, Candler v. Washoe Lake Reservoir & Galena Creek Ditch Co., 28 Nev. 151, 80 P. 751, 6 Ann.Cas. 946, and Naylor v. Floor, 51 Utah 382, 170 P. 971, the court apparently approves of formulas given for ascertaining damage where the crop has no market value at the time and place ......
-
Bader v. Mills & Baker Company
...harvesting, and marketing them, and also deducting the value of any portion of the crops that may have been saved." In the case of Naylor v. Floor, supra, the court approved of following instruction as substantially correct: "The measure of damage is the difference between the market value ......
-
Beagley v. U.S. Gypsum Co.
...according to its conclusions upon the evidence, as the case may require. To my mind, the court in this case was bound under Naylor v. Floor, 51 Utah 382, 170 P. 971, and Spencer v. J. W. Summerhays & Sons, 74 Utah 473, 280 P. 720, and upon the record made upon trial, to apply the rule of co......
-
Kingsbury v. Bacon
...was entirely a question of fact to be determined by the jury. (Kendall v. McIntire Inc. Co., 59 Utah 228, 203 P. 653; Naylor v. Floor, 51 Utah 382, 170 P. 971; v. Madereita, 32 Idaho 406, 184 P. 225; Sutherland on Damages, 4th ed., sec. 445.) WM. E. LEE, J. McCarthy, C. J., and William A. L......