Opinion ID: 1898610
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: At Dates Indicated

Text: LABOR FOR DOWELS DOWLING PURCHASED EXHIBIT # 1 EXHIBIT # 2 Period Beginning March 13, 1959 thru December 31, 1959 $11,060.00 $ YEAR 1960 12,303.00 YEAR 1961 11,612.00 YEAR 1962 17,042.00 6,119.45 YEAR 1963 17,393.00 9,402.19 YEAR 1964 8,079.00 4,019.17 __________ __________ TOTALS $77,489.00 $19,540.81 ========== ========== INCREASE 5¢ 10% PER NET PRICE FOOTAGE INCREASE TOTALS EXHIBIT # 3 EXHIBIT # 4 Period Beginning March 13, 1959 thru December 31, 1959 $ 72,192.89 $ $ 83,252.89 YEAR 1960 71,932.42 84,235.42 YEAR 1961 64,413.11 16,753.54 92,778.65 YEAR 1962 85,668.82 22,313.74 131.144.01 YEAR 1963 52,814.31 79,609.50 YEAR 1964 24,871.07 36,969.24 ___________ ___________ ___________ $371,892.62 $ 39,067.28 $507,989.71 =========== =========== =========== (NOTE) This statement was prepared without audit. Cross-appellant argues that since it was given a peremptory instruction on the ten percent letter issue, and since the jury found for more than Robinson asserted was due under that letter, there necessarily was a finding of more than $14,000 of damages on the other items. We, of course, do not know how the jury arrived at its verdict. It was not required to accept any witness's exact figures. It may have found the amount due under the ten percent letter at much less than the figure shown on the statement. It may have considered the words prepared without audit as weakening the statement. The jurors, watching and listening to the witnesses, may have thought the five cent increase claimed was high. They might have considered the dispute about Bentz fixing the price and may have found for cross-appellant only on those invoices which showed Bentz's handwriting or where he admitted the handwriting was that of one of his employees. They could have thought the fact Gilder accepted checks tendered created a conflict as to the five cent increase. They might have considered Gilder's acceptance of checks as an acknowledgement that the price was fair and reasonable and returned their verdict only on the ten percent letter and the cost of dowels purchased, disallowing the amount claimed for labor in installing dowels and disallowing the claimed five cents increase. Since there were on the statement of claimed damages three items, other than the claim under the ten percent letter, it does not follow that because the verdict was for more than the amount claimed under the letter, the jury found for cross-appellee on each of the various items claimed. For these reasons we are unable to say the circuit court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial on the question of damages alone. Certainly it was correct in overruling appellants' motion for a verdict for the full amount. Affirmed on direct and cross-appeals. ETHRIDGE, C.J., and RODGERS, BRADY and INZER, JJ., concur.