A. Sewell & Son v. Mead
| Decision Date | 19 May 1892 |
| Citation | 52 N.W. 227,85 Iowa 343 |
| Parties | A. SEWELL & SON. Appellants, v. H. C. MEAD, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Butler District Court.--HON. J. C. SHERWIN, Judge.
ACTION at law to recover thirty-one dollars and thirty-seven cents alleged to have been paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant under protest, and to recover two hundred and thirty-four dollars damages for an alleged breach of contract. The case was tried by a jury, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the defendant. The plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
E. L Smalley, for appellants.
J. H Scales, for appellee.
The appellants state as the basis of this action that about May 5, 1889, the appellee agreed verbally with them to pasture for them one hundred and seventeen steers on his farm from that time until October 10th following, for one dollar and seventy-five cents per head; to furnish good and sufficient pasture, feed and water; not to overstock the pasture; and not to allow heifers or cows to be kept in the same pasture. They allege as their first cause of action that about September 13, 1889, the 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 the 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-hundredth 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 and thirty-seven one-hundredth dollars, no part of which has been paid, for which the plaintiffs demand judgment." For further causes of action the appellants allege that the 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, the appellants were damaged two hundred and thirty-four dollars, which, with the thirty-one and thirty-seven one-hundredth dollars paid under protest, they ask to recover. The defendant answered, admitting that he pastured the plaintiffs' cattle, and that the plaintiffs paid him therefor, on September 13, 1889, two hundred dollars. He denies every...
To continue reading
Request your trial