Polis v. Alford, 12717
| Decision Date | 10 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 12717,12717 |
| Citation | 273 S.W.2d 79 |
| Parties | A. K. POLIS, Appellant, v. A. B. ALFORD, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Kelley, Looney, McLean & Littleton, Edinburg, for appellant.
J. F. Carl, Edinburg, for appellee.
This suit concerns the application of the rule of minimizing damages sustained by the breach of a contract. A. B. Alford sued and obtained a judgment for $670 against his landlord, A. K. Polis. The suit asserted the breach of a written farm lease executed on January 14, 1952. The lease provided that Alford should plant cotton on the property in question. The portion of the contract which was breached provided: 'Lessor agrees to pay flat rate and bond taxes which may be assessed against said real estate.' Because the lessor failed to comply with the quoted clause in the contract, Alford alleged that he was unable to obtain irrigation water and suffered a crop failure. Polis admits the breach but insists that Alford should have mitigated the loss by paying the flat rate himself, a sum of $18.75. He admits that he owes Alford $18.75, but insists that his liability should not exceed that amount. The question presented by the appeal is whether Alford's damages should have been limited to the sum of $18.75.
The water district, according to the evidence, delivers water to purchasers in the order in which they pay and refuses to deliver water when the flat rate assessment is delinquent. That charge became delinquent on February 1, 1952, and the landlord did not pay it on or before that date. When the flat rate assessment became delinquent the water user went to the bottom of the list. According to the record, on February 1st Alford's name was taken from the top of the list of persons entitled to water and was placed at the bottom of the list. The record shows that the water district had an available supply of water only for three days between February 1st and February 4th. In March the landlord paid the falt rate, but no water was then available. Alford dry planted his cotton, but by reason of no rain and no water from the district he failed to make a crop.
Alford had no prior notice, nor any reason to believe that Polis would violate his contract and fail to pay the flat rate. Until February 1st Polis could have paid the flat rate, and until that date Alford could reasonably assume that Polis would comply with his agreement rather than breach it.
'Since the purpose of the rule concerning damages is to put the injured party in as good a position as he would have been put by full...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Copenhaver v. Berryman
...LTV Aerospace Corporation v. Bateman, 492 S.W.2d 703, 709 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1973, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Polis v. Alford, 273 S.W.2d 79, 80 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1954, writ ref'd). Plaintiffs' first ten points of error, which are grouped together for argument and authority purposes, "a......
-
Otto Goedecke, Inc. v. Henderson
...v. Missouri K. & T. Ry. Co., 92 Tex. 593, 50 S.W. 559; Morgan v. Young, (Tex.Civ.App.), 203 S.W.2d 837, (Refused, NRE); Polis v. Alford, (Tex.Civ.App.), 273 S.W.2d 79, (Error Refused). The duty to mitigate damages does not come into play until the injured party has notice of the breach of c......
-
Williams v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc.
...falls on the one who caused the breach to show that losses could have been avoided by reasonable effort. Polis v. Alford, 273 S.W.2d 79, 80 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1954, writ ref'd).6 The first question thus becomes whether or not the landlord in this case has reentered and accepted a sur......
-
Employment Advisors, Inc. v. Sparks
...Moreover, the burden is on the party occasioning the loss to show that the other party could have mitigated the loss. Polis v. Alford, Tex.Civ.App., Er.Ref., 273 S.W.2d 79. In the Polis case the court 'The burden of proving that losses could have been avoided by reasonable effort must alway......