Court Opinion

ID: 9636519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:31:53.401549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:46.655304
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
We cannot agree with the contention of appellant, in its petition for rehearing, that there was an inconsistency in the verdict of the jury in its failure to answer certain interrogatories.
Appellee Louis Fetschan can be fairly said to have claimed that the appellant had breached the lease in question in two ways: first, that it caused noxious fumes to be *136emitted onto appellee’s premises; second, that it caused flood waters to be diverted onto such premises. For the damages caused by the fumes, appellee claimed $8,000.00; for the damages caused by the flood waters, he claimed $12,400.00. The jury awarded damages of $7,908.00. It was unable to answer the interrogatories with regard to damages caused by the flood waters.
The fumes damage was claimed as covering the period from January, 1934, to August, 1938. The jury, in its answer to an interrogatory, found that the lease had been breached “from January 1934 to August 1938.” The only damage claimed for this period was damage from fumes. The flood damage did not occur until January, 1937. In support of the verdict, we are of the opinion that the jury’s answer to the interrogatory should be interpreted as a finding that the lease had been breached because of the emission of fumes, during the period commencing January, 1934, and continuing until August, 1938.
But in order to affirm the judgment, it is not required that even such reasonable inferences be drawn from the jury’s finding. If it had found in favor of the appellant on all of the unanswered interrogatories, relating to the flood damage, its verdict would still be supported by its answer that the lease had been breached during the above-mentioned four-year period. We do not consider other questions raised to be meritorious, and the petition for rehearing is denied.