Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-05-04

8GV0I u NAVR WIN WOtSu NJ OF near .
the place whete It wan grown when
matured, and to mako proper es->
Inmates and allowances from ascer-
tanned and ascertainabe facts for the
contingencies and expenses attending
its futher cultivation and care.
In the case Of the Railroad Co. vs.
Pape in the same volume Of Reports
at page SOL. the Court again discuss
ing the same question says: st
seems to us that as q general rule the
most satisfactory means of arriving ut
the value Of growing crop is TO
prove its probable yield under proper
cultivation, the value Of such yield
when matured and ready for sale,
and also the expense of such cultiva-
ton as well as the cost of its prepare
ton and transportation to market
The difference between the value IF
the proba BILE crop in the market anu
the expense of maturing, preparing
and placing it there, will in most cases
give the value OF the growing crops
with as much certainty as can be
attained by any other method"
From an examination of many au
thorities we are convinved that just
and reasonable rule for the measure of
damages fer the loss of growing crops.
IN cases like the one now before this
Court, where it appears that the crops
have been entirely destroyed. or near
| ly go. and where there appears to be
g reasonable certainty that they would
have matured but for the wrongful act
of the defendant, wOuld be to allow
the plaintiffs the probable weld of the
| IRONS vn6nr n11fivotiAY,
| value of the yield when matured and
from the estimated expense Of pro
ducing. harvesting and marketing
them, and, also. deducting the value Of
any portion of the crops that NAV
have been saved. (Rai'road Co. VS.
MCGOWAN, SUPRA: railroad Co. VS.
Pape. supra; srnith VS. Chicago etc.
Ry. Co. SO la. 51s; shotwell VS. Dodge
8 Wash. 1877, IS Pac. 254: Hopkins
VS. 3. & M. Com. Co., Is Mont. $50,
40 Pac. 865; Carran VS. Wood 10 3D.
5o7, Is Pac. 3s8: Peoples Ice Co. VS.
Stemner Excelsior a. M-.,. 237; and
see also, LommIand VS. So Paul etc.
Ry. Co. IS MINI. 412. Sutherland on
Damages supra.
In the written opinion and decision
of the trial Court and in the findings
is contained statement of the items
which the Court considered as going
to make up the proper amount of
damages to be awarded the plaintiffs.
and they are as follows: Value Of
alfalfa and timothy seed planted SGT.
SIS: value of wheat seed planted $29. 0C
value of fall pasture $4,000; value
of wheat crop $32S.25: wages of an
irrigator $4,000, making a total of
s675.13
AS the judgment now stands afte:
deducting the $4,000, heretofore
stricken from the judgment the plain,
tiffs have been allowed the sum of
S42S.25, the market value of the est
mated crops Of pasture and wheat,
and including the value Of the seed
as above mentioned. The wheat seed
was a necessary expense of producing
the wheat crop and, therefore. is not
an element of damage. 1t is urged
that for the same reason the value
of the timothy and alfalfa seed shout 1.
also. be stricken out. This seed, how
ever. is not planted for the purpose
of producing single crop but to OBJ
tain a stand which would produce.
ordinarily. two crops per year for
many years without further seeding
The Court found. because of the fail
ure of the defendant to furnish water
as agreed, that the stand of alfalfa
and timothy was in the main killed
, out The damage thus resulting. was
damage to reality itself and would
amount at least to the value of the
seed planted to produce the stand.
There does not appear to be any
, evidence in the record of what would
have been the probable cost of har-
vesting or marketing the wheat crop,
and it does not appear that these eX
: penses We're considered proper de-
auctions to be made from the es
, timated market value of the crop
, Also. it appears that the only expense
of producing the crops considered by
the Court, was that of the wages Of
: the irriagator 1t, however, appears
, from the record that if plaintiffs crops
, had matured. a further ana additional
5 necessary expense of their production
| would have been the cost of water
| for irrigation. While. under the finding
. the defendant is not entitled to any
; thing in the nature of counter CLAIM
4 for water furnished, nevertheless j
4 is necessary to consider what tn
/ water would have cost in order t,
i. determine the net profit which plain
tiffs should have derived from thei
t crops. which, in brief, is the measure
/ of their damage.
Dedutcing what the water wOult
:. have cost. tO-wit: $25O.,U, and tn
g cost of the wheat seed from the jude
Il ment as now modified. and there
s would remain the sum of $246.13. frOr
s which there should yet be deducte
s the cost of harvesting and marketin
the wheat crop. There is also ev
> dence upon the part of plaintiffs tina
L. a small portion Of the crop was save
= of the value of fifteen or twenty do
u lars. which does not appear to hav
Is been taken into account in the jud;