Court Opinion

ID: 9827988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:00:05.357985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:41.114754
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Upon consideration of appellee’s motion for rehearing, it is apparent we erred in requiring a remittitur reducing to $593.10 the amount of his recovery for rents. Prom the date of dispossession by appellants to date *930of verdict and judgment (November 8, 1914, to October 22, 1915) is 11 months and 19 days. Goodman testified that the rental value of the property was $80 to $85 per month. His testimony upon this phase of the case is amply corroborated by disinterested witnesses. It is thus quite apparent that the allowance of $885.50 for rents was not excessive. Our error was occasioned by a miscalculation which the writer made of the time intervening between the date of dispossession and the date verdict was returned and the judgment rendered.
[7] The appellants’ thirteenth assignment complains of the refusal to submit this issue, viz.:
“How much rent do you find that defendants have received from the property, and for what period of time was such rent received?”
The proper measure of appellee’s damage for the unlawful detention of the premises was the fair cash rental value of the property during the period of detention, and the court, therefore, did not err in refusing to submit the issue indicated. What has been here said disposes of all assignments relating to this phase of the case.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled. Appellee’s motion is granted, the order requiring a remittitur, heretofore entered as a condition of affirmance, is set aside, and the judgment of the court below is in all things affirmed.