Wood v. Jaeger
Decision Date | 30 July 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 9221,9221 |
Citation | 128 Mont. 235,272 P.2d 725 |
Parties | WOOD v. JAEGER. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Murch & Wuerthner, Julius J. Wuerthner and John P. Wuerthner, Great Falls, John P. Wuerthner, Great Falls, argued orally, for appellant.
Frisbee & Moore, Cut Bank, for respondent filed no brief and did argue.
This is an action wherein R. D. Wood, plaintiff and respondent, sued Melvin Jaeger, defendant and appellant, for damages sustained when Jaeger, through his agents, refused to accept and buy certain cattle as agreed upon by the terms of a written contract. The trial jury found its verdict for Wood in the amount of $558.75. From the judgment following such verdict Jaeger appeals.
In his complaint Wood avers that Jaeger violated the express terms of a written contract which is set out as part of the complaint in exhibit 'A', by refusing, through his agents, to receive and pay for certain cattle, and that as a result of such violation Wood had to sell the cattle rejected by Jaeger's agents, at a lesser price than agreed on in the written contract, and with added expense, whereby he suffered damages in the amount of money prayed for.
Jaeger in his answer admits that on or about the 10th day of September 1949, the contract set forth as exhibit 'A' in said complaint was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. He further avers the cattle plaintiff had to sell were not as represented and for that reason his agents refused to accept them. Continuing, Jaeger averred that certain of the cattle were sold to him through his agents 'in an entirely new deal and transaction' on September 15, 1949, which were paid for, and that he 'had no further interest in the remainder of the cattle.'
The jury were justified in finding from Wood's evidence that in August 1949 one Sirginson, as the agent of Jaeger, visited the Wood ranch in East Glacier Park, seeking to purchase cattle; that Wood and Sirginson went to the 'old Neilson place * * * to look at the cattle * * * and * * * drove from one herd of cattle to another bunch all over the pasture * * *' inspecting them; that they were 'dealing on that entire group of cattle in that field with ten percent cut,' and in connection with such cattle Sirginson visited Wood during the following week and talked
As set out by the trial judge in instruction No. 1 to the jury: 'This contract is as follows:
at Buyers option, or as soon thereafter as cars can be furnished by
carrier for final destination.
"All of the above stock to be free from encumbrances, including taxes
for year of delivery, and to pass federal and state inspection for interstate
shipment. Health and brand certificates to be furnished purchaser, free
of charge, on delivery. Above to be free of contagious disease and in
merchantable condition.
According to Wood the written contract referred Jaeger was not at Browning but his agents, Sirginson and Woolf, were there to receive the cattle. Sirginson refused to take
After shipping the rejected cattle to Great Falls, Wood on September 21, 1949, sent a letter to Jaeger at Great Falls, demanding an amount of money as damages equal to the difference between what Wood had received in Great Falls for the rejected cattle and what he would have received 'if you had fulfilled your contract,' plus the cost...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Cline
...jury was bound thereby. DeLeon v. McNinch, 146 Mont. 287, 407 P.2d 45; McDonald v. Peters, 128 Mont. 241, 272 P.2d 730; Wood v. Jeager, 128 Mont. 235, 272 P.2d 725; Metcalf v. Barnard-Curtiss Co., 120 Mont. 50, 180 P.2d 263; Bowman v. Lesis, 110 Mont. 435, 102 P.2d 1; Ingman v. Hewitt, 107 ......