Railway Company v. Beard

• Decision Date: 05 January 1895
• Citation: 29 S.W. 146,60 Ark. 151
• Parties: RAILWAY COMPANY v. BEARD
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

29 S.W. 146

60 Ark. 151

RAILWAY COMPANY v. BEARD

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 5, 1895

Appeal from Miller Circuit Court RUFUS D. HEARN, Judge.

Action by Charles E. Beard against the St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railway Company. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Sam H West and Gaughan & Sifford for appellant.

1. The verdict is clearly excessive. Before one can recover for breach of contract, he must show that he was ready to do the thing contracted for, and offered to do it, but was prevented from doing it by the opposite party. 52 Ark. 117; 33 Ark 545; 39 id. 280. The evidence nowhere discloses the amount of compensation paid for the three supplements. Appellee says he was paid for the work, but not $ 300 for each, and yet the jury allowed him $ 900 for the work.

2. The law of this case is settled by 19 S.W. 923; 56 Ark. 309.

Scott & Jones for appellee.

RIDDICK J. Chief Justice Bunn, being disqualified, did not participate.

OPINION

RIDDICK, J.

This was an action for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. The appellee, Chas. E. Beard, states that, on the 13th day of August, 1888, he contracted with the appellant railway company to print its time cards during the following year, or so long as the general offices of the company remained at Texarkana. The contract was not reduced to writing, but, according to the contention of appellee, its terms were that for each edition of the time card he was to receive $ 300--one edition to consist of three thousand cards--and that a new edition of the time card was to be printed whenever there was a change made in the time of running any of the trains of the railway company. He claims that the company failed to comply with its contract; that it refused to allow him to print time card No. 8, or to pay him therefor; that it only paid him $ 275 for time card No. 10, of which he printed only two thousand cards, and that on three different occasions, when changes were made in the running of its trains, it printed supplements to the time card, instead of time cards, as called for by the contract. Upon the trial in the circuit court there was a verdict for appellee, and the damages assessed at $ 1,370.20, and judgment accordingly. A motion for new trial being overruled, the railway company appealed. The only serious question for us to determine is whether or not the damages assessed are excessive.

When this case was before the court on a former appeal, it was said that the damages recoverable by Beard, if any, "are the value of the benefits he would have directly received from the contract in the event it had been performed, and did not receive, less the reasonable expenses he would have incurred in the performance of his part thereof." Railway Co. v. Beard, 56 Ark. 309. Assuming a state of facts the most favorable to appellee that is warranted by the evidence, and applying this rule, we find that, for the failure of appellant to permit him to print time card No. 8, he should be allowed $ 300 less the probable reasonable expense in printing same with interest on balance; for time card No. 10 he should be allowed $ 300 less the probable expense of printing the extra one thousand cards which he did not print, and less the $ 275 paid...