Court Opinion

ID: 9833805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:02:53.257241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.946051
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Defendant’s first supplemental answer in respect to the alleged representations that appellant Pope made, is that he should immediately get busy and arrange matters with said John J. Welder so as to reduce the mortgage debt of said Welder to not more than $15 per aere, and so as to obtain a reasonable extension of túne of payment on said sum per acre to said Welder, all to the end that said compromise agreement might be fully consummated within 30 days from December 13, 1920. Despite said facts, plaintiffs herein have failed and refused, and still fail and refuse, to observe or carry out the terms and provisions of said compromise agreement and further alleged, “the reasonable market value of said land involved herein did not exceed on December 13, 1920, *689and does not now exceed the sum of $23 per acre, on the open market.” Appellee’s prayer is “for his damages sustained by reason of the failure and refusal of plaintiffs herein to comply with the terms of said compromise settlement. In this connection this defendant says that, by reason of said wrongful refusal and failure of plaintiffs to observe the terms of said compromise settlement this defendant has been damaged in the sum of $5,000.”
The finding of the jury that the land on the day of the trial was of the market value of $35 per acre is greatly more than appellee sued for; he alleged it not to exceed $23 per acre. It was alleged that Pope guaranteed the debt not to exceed $15 per acre. It was alleged that the lien on the land amounted to about $21 per acre. There were 507 acres which, at $15 per acre represented the Welder debt at $7,605 that had to be discharged. Now at $21 the real debt gives the sum of $10,147, the difference between represented indebtedness that appel-lee ‘would have to have had to discharge. Now at the jury’s finding of $35 per acre for the land, gives a total valuation of $15,-717.
Independent of the offset by the notes, the judgment is greatly excessive and supported neither by the pleadings nor the evidence.
The opinion affirming the judgment is withdrawn, and set aside, and a reheUring is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is set aside, and the cause is reversed and remanded.
On Second Motion for liehearing.
Appellee filed a separate motion for rehearing, a separate motion for additional findings, and a motion to be allowed to file á remittitur.
Por reasons given in our opinion granting the motion for rehearing, it appears that the allegations and proof, and the findings of the jury do not correspond. The pleadings alleged the value of the 507 acres of land to be conveyed to appellant to be worth '$23 per acre. The indebtedness agreed to be discharged was $15 per acre.
Appellee was entitled to recover on the breach of the compromise agreement the difference represented between the Welder debt, the taxes, and the amount of the'notes he was to give appellants (one of which was for $300 and the other for $2,850, amounting to the aggregate sum of $3,150), and the value of the land at $23 per acre, not the value at $31 per acre, found by the jury, for that was more than sued for. Owing to the confusion growing out of the pleadings of all the parties and findings of the jury, showing the value of the land more than sued for, we do not feel that we should reform the judgment and reverse and here render. A' reversal gives the parties an opportunity, if thought desirable, to recast the pleading and more properly join, submit, and try the issues.
Appellee requests the court to give him an opportunity to enter a remittitur and to indicate what the amount shall be. The judgment was for $4,451.
The excess in the judgment grows out of the fact that the calculation was based on the jury’s finding at the rate of $31 per acre, $15,-717. The highest price sued for was $23 per acre, making $11,661; the difference between the two sums therefore being $4,056. No judgment will be permitted to stand when challenged, based upon the finding of a jury, for an amount greater than sued for. This error is fundamental and requires a reversal.
The fact that appellee, after having specifically pleaded his damages and fixed the value of the land at $23 per acre, it. is of no consequence that he placed the general damages at $5,000, alleged to have been sustained by him set out in his prayer, for specific performance.
The consideration at which appellee was to get the 507 acres was at $15 per acre, to which should be added $511 taxes, and the $3,150 notes, and calculate the value of the land at $23 per acre instead of $31 per acre, found by the jury, thus making the amount to be remitted the sum of $4,056. The amount that appellee would be entitled to recover after allowing those credits and his notes, would be $395.
Therefore, if appellee, within 10 days from this date, files a remittitur for the sum of $4,056,' the judgment will be affirmed and rendered for' appellee for the sum of $395. If, in 10 days from this date, no remittitur is filed, in accordance with this opinion, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial.