Court Opinion

ID: 9828386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:20:03.161434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.706462
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In reversing this case we held that the trial court erred in instructing the verdict against appellants on their allegations of damage for expenses incurred by them in attempting to execute the contract. We held that they had wholly failed to make out a case of lost profits. Against this holding, appellants have filed no motion for' rehearing. But while complaining of our holding, appellees now come by motion and ask us to grant a rehearing, proposing to pay all sums that could be adjudged against them under our view of the law. In connection with this motion, and as a part thereof, they show that appellants were caused to lose the following sums by reason of the breach of the contract, and they insist that these amounts are all that the record shows:
Forfeited to Sheffield.$162 50
Forfeited to Shepherd. 85 00
Forfeited to Fannie Weaver. 100 00
Total . $347 50
Though appellants were requested by the court to answer this motion, and though they have done so, they do not controvert the correctness of these figures taken by appellees *162from the record, but direct their answer to another question. Thus they say:
“By breaching the contract on collateral grounds, defendants relieved plaintiffs of what, otherwise, would have been the necessity of perfecting 'title. It was then only necessary for plaintiffs to show what it would have cost them to perfect the titles and discharge the other expenses necessary to have been incurred; the difference was what plaintiffs were entitled to recover. This was shown by the general allegations as to the loss of profits to which no special exception was directed.”
As it is our construction of the evidence that appellants did not discharge the burden that this proposition now advanced imposes upon them, it follows that a 'judgment was correctly instructed against them on their count for lost profits.
It is our order that appellees’ motion for rehearing be granted, and that appellants recover of them the sum of $347.50, together with all costs in this behalf expended, both in the lower court and in this court.
This order does not disturb appellants’ judgment against appellees in the sum of $673.15, or the balance due on notes; but that part of the judgment is 'in all things affirmed as in the original opinion.