Sewell v. Mead

• Decision Date: 19 May 1892
• Citation: 52 N.W. 227,85 Iowa 343
• Parties: SEWELL ET AL. v. MEAD.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

85 Iowa 343

52 N.W. 227

SEWELL ET AL.

v.MEAD.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 19, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Butler county; J. C. SHERWIN, Judge.

Action at law to recover $31.37 alleged to have been paid by plaintiffs to defendant under protest, and to recover $234 damages for an alleged breach of contract. The case was tried by a jury, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.E. L. Smalley, for appellants.

J. H. Scales, for appellee.

GIVEN, J.

1. Appellants state as the basis of this action that about May 5, 1889, appellee agreed verbally with them to pasture for them 117 steers on his farm from that time until October 10th following, for $1.75 per head; to furnish good and sufficient pasture, feed and water; not to overstock the pasture; and not to allow beifers or cows to be kept in the same pasture. They allege as their first cause of action that about September 13, 1889, appellee sent them word “that they should come and get their stock, on account of the insufficiency of the feed;” that on that day they went and found the stock suffering for want of feed; that appellee refused to allow them to take the stock without paying the full price for the full time, and refused to furnish any better pasture; “that under protest the plaintiffs paid the defendant the sum of two hundred dollars, or four and seventy-five one hundredths dollars less than the full amount of the herd bill, which sum of two hundred dollars was in excess of the amount due said defendant, at the aforesaid rate and for the aforesaid time, in the sum of thirty-one dollars and thirty-seven cents, no part of which has been paid, for which plaintiffs demand judgment.” For further causes of action, appellants allege that appellee failed to keep and perform said contract, in that he failed to furnish good and sufficient pasture, feed and water, failed to keep said steers separate from cows and heifers, and failed to keep them until October 10, 1889; that, by reason of said breaches of said contract, appellants were damaged $234, which, with the $31.37 paid under protest, they ask to recover. Defendant answered, admitting that he pastured plaintiffs' cattle, and that plaintiffs paid him therefor, on September 13, 1889, $200. He denies every other allegation in the petition, and alleges that said payment was made upon a settlement then had between them for the pasturing of the cattle. The foregoing is a sufficient statement of the issues...