Court Opinion

ID: 9828482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:25:42.858223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:49.475151
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant insists with much earnestness that the value of one-third of the growing crop of wheat which was destroyed by him at the time it was destroyed by pasturing stock thereon was the correct measure of plaintiff’s' damages for such destruction.
[6] The allegation made by plaintiff rela'-tive to the destruction of the growing crop of wheat was in his complaint that thereby defendant had breached his rental to cultivate the land and care for the crops grown thereon in a workmanlike manner. The claim for damages for such breach was for the value of one-third of the crop of wheat that the land would have yielded but for such breach. Plaintiff would have been entitled to one-third of such a crop free of any expense for cultivating and harvesting it. To limit his recovery to the value of the crop at the time defendant destroyed it would have deprived him of the benefit of his bargain with defendant for the cultivation of the land in a proper manner. Hence the numerous decisions applicable to the mere tortious- destruction of a growing crop, cited by appellant, are not applicable.’
. Testimony showing the amount realized by defendant for pasturing the land after the termination of the lease and while defendant wrongfully withheld possession was admissible to show the value of the grass for pasturage purposes which plaintiff was entitled to recover. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Rheiner, 25 S. W. 971, and cases there cited.
[7] Appellee has filed a' certificate of the trial judge, of a date subsequent- to our decision on original hearing, to the effect that thp *265item oí $60.35, which plaintiff admitted he owed defendant, mentioned in our original opinion, was not submitted to the jury, because appellant agreed in open court that the court should allow a recovery therefor,’ and that that issue should be withdrawn from the jury. Predicated upon that certificate is a prayer that the judgment of the trial court in favor of appellee be affirmed in its entirety, and that it be not so reformed as. to eliminate therefrom the item of $60.35, which appellant admitted he owed to appellee.
We know of no rule which allows such an amendment of the record in this manner, and at this stage of the proceedings, and hence cannot consider the certificate tendered.
Both motions for rehearing are overruled.