Court Opinion

ID: 9864486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:21:47.741777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:13.706501
License: Public Domain

*525THE COURT.
On petition for rehearing, a re-examination of the transcript discloses that the order striking $106 from the judgment should not have been made. It was based upon the following state of facts: The trial court reduced the judgment allowed by the jury in the sum of $500, for and on account of the failure of plaintiff to harvest 17 acres of rice, and the jury was not instructed to deduct that acreage in considering the amount of damages to be awarded. The plaintiff actually harvested, as disclosed by the record, 17 sacks of rice per acre on the remainder of the land. Upon the same basis the 17 acres would have produced 289' sacks of rice at the admitted price of $2.10 per sack, aggregating a total of $606. This was the sum which, this court found should have been deducted from the total judgment. In making this calculation and the order based thereon, the cost of harvesting, threshing, sacking, and marketing was overlooked. These items would have reduced the total sum below the amount directed to be stricken from the judgment by the trial court. A statement of these facts is all that is necessary to show that the deductions made by the trial court should remain as fixed by said court.
It is therefore ordered that the last paragraph of the opinion heretofore filed in this cause be stricken therefrom, that the order modifying the judgment of the trial court be vacated and set aside and the following entered in lieu thereof: It is hereby ordered that the judgment of the trial court be, and the same is hereby affirmed, and that the respondent recover his costs on appeal herein.
Appellant’s petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on August 3, 1925.
All the Justices present concurred.