Rule v. McGregor

• Decision Date: 03 June 1902
• Citation: Rule v. McGregor, 117 Iowa 419, 90 N.W. 811 (Iowa 1902)
• Parties: WILLIAM H. RULE v. JOHN MCGREGOR, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

90 N.W. 811

117 Iowa 419

WILLIAM H. RULE v. JOHN MCGREGOR, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

June 3, 1902

Appeal from Crawford District Court.--HON. S. M. ELWOOD, Judge.

THE plaintiff first sued defendant for an accounting of partnership transaction in the operation of the latter's farm, and afterwards began an action at law for the recovery of items independent of such partnership. Issues were joined and in the law action defendant, by way of counter claim demanded judgment for the amount due on three notes. By agreement the suits were consolidated, and trial had as in equity. From judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendant appeals.--Reversed.

REVERSED and remanded.

Russell & Tolliver and E. B. Wilson for appellant.

J. P Connor for appellee.

OPINION

LADD, C. J.

The plaintiff moved on defendant's farm, of 240 acres, March 2, 1897, and continued there one year. This was under an oral agreement that the profits should be equally divided; the plaintiff to furnish necessary means, to be returned to him from the common property, with interest at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, and the plaintiff to manage the farm. Whether plaintiff was to do all the farm work, or merely furnish the labor of his two sons is in dispute; but we are inclined to take the latter view, and he should be allowed in the accounting the amount paid for extra help. The defendant was to furnish half the farm implements, but failed to do so, and should be charged $ 25 for half the use of that supplied by plaintiff in excess of his share. Fairly included in the management of the farm would be the procurement of seed, and plaintiff's charge for obtaining corn to plant cannot be allowed. Undoubtedly the defendant agreed to have the wells (one at the house, and the other at the barn) repaired, and failed to do so. It seems the curbing was decayed, and the earth partially caved in. As a result, plaintiff was compelled to get water for his stock and for house purposes at a well in the slough, some 15 rods from the house, and 10 rods from the barn. The defendant testified that, when he proposed to repair the one near the house, plaintiff said that, as he could not raise the money owing McGregor, he was perfectly willing to fetch the water till such time as he could get the money. This is denied by plaintiff, who testified to having ascertained the price of brick for the wells at defendant's request, and that the latter promised to haul them as soon as the weather would permit. It is not claimed that defendant ever refused to repair the wells, or that plaintiff complained, or ever demanded that this should be done. Indeed, Rule made use of the slough well without objection, though McGregor was continually accessible. All the circumstances corroborate defendant, and nothing should be allowed plaintiff on his claim for carrying water. As to whether recovery of damages could have been had in any event, see Ladner v. Balsley, 103 Iowa 674, 72 N.W. 787; Myers v. Burns, 35 N.Y. 269.

II. The plaintiff contended that defendant, as a part of the agreement to lease, promised to furnish 105 steers about March 1, 1897, to be fed on the farm, and the money to purchase the feed, and that on the amount of money so expended he was to receive interest at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, and that the profits above this were to be equally divided. The district court's finding that it was so agreed is sustained by the evidence. The purchase of a second lot was contingent on the outcome of the first being satisfactory, and hence dependent on a future understanding of the parties, which was never had. As there was no contract with respect to the second lot, there could have been no breach. The cattle were to be bought and fed five or six months for profit. The defendant failed to furnish them, and now insists that the damages flowing from the breach of contract are too remote and speculative for allowance. The object was the profits to be derived, and the mere fact that these might prove difficult of ascertainment ought not to defeat recovery. Uncertainty as to the amount of damages is not an obstacle in the way of their allowance. Uncertainty as to the cause from which they proceed is what has occasioned trouble, and only when it cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty that these have sprung from the breach alleged are they to be rejected as too remote or conjectural and speculative. This distinction is noticed in Trigg v. Clay, 88 Va. 330 (13 S.E. 434, 29 Am. St. Rep. 723): "It is sometimes said that the profits that would have been derived from performance cannot be recovered, but this is only true of such as are contingent upon some other operation. Profits which certainly would have been realized but for defendant's fault are recoverable. It is not an uncertainty as to the value of the benefit or gain to be derived from performance, but an uncertainty or contingency whether such gain or benefit can be derived at all. It is sometimes said that speculative damages cannot be recovered, because the amount is uncertain, but such remarks will generally be found applicable to such damages as it is uncertain whether sustained at all from the breach. Sometimes the claim is rejected as being too remote. This is another mode of saying that it is uncertain whether such damages resulted necessarily and immediately from the breach complained of. The general rule is that all damages resulting necessarily and immediately and directly from the breach are recoverable, and not those that are contingent and uncertain." Schrandt v. Young, (-- Neb. --), 2 Neb. Unoff. 546, 89 N.W. 607, is a case precisely in point. There Schrandt agreed to furnish 529 ewes to Young, to be kept for him three years, to make good losses, and have one-half of the wool clip and one-half the increase. Schrandt failed to furnish the sheep, and damages based on the probable increase of the flock and the wool clip were held not open to the objection of being speculative and conjectural. In Hirschhorn...