Court Opinion

ID: 9829199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:04:29.709992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:35.926592
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing appellant complains of the following statement in the portion of our opinion in which we discuss the third assignment of error:
“The statement under the assignment contains a copy of the. verdict, which shows that the jury in estimating' the damages sustained by the plaintiif deducted from the value of the crop he would have made the value of the crop he did raise, but there is nothing in the statement showing what was the value of the crop raised. For aught that appears in the statement, the value of the crop raised and for which the jury gave appellant credit may have been equal to the amount expended by plaintiff,” etc.
The complaint is that the statement under the assignment does show the value of the crop-raised by appellee.
[6] Upon a re-examination of the brief we find that it appears from the statement under the assignment that:
“The plaintiff admitted that the value of the crop he did raise on his land in 1910 was $637.-75.”
The admission of plaintiff of the value of the crop raised by him was not conclusive of that issue. Such admission concluded plaintiff from showing that the value was less than the amount stated by him, but did not prevent appellant from showing a greater value. We fhink, however, that while it does not affirmatively appear from the statement that this admission of plaintiff was the only evidence upon the issue of the value of the crop raised by him, the reasonable inference from the statement is that this was all of the evidence upon that issue. Giving this effect to the statement, it was not deficient in the respect stated in our opinion, and the portion of the opinion before quoted is withdrawn.
This correction in our finding as to the sufficiency of the statement under the third assignment of error eliminates one of the grounds of our holding that said assignment should be overruled. We still think, however, that for the other reasons stated in our opinion the assignment should be sustained. The motion for rehearing is overruled.