Court Opinion

ID: 9762619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:27:21.244767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:35.804261
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
In appellant’s motion for rehearing or in the alternative for transfer to the Supreme Court, it is contended for the first time that plaintiff’s Instruction I (relative to the measure of damages) is erroneous because it places no limitation on the amount plaintiff could recover for loss of rentals and allowed the jury to assess damages in a sum representing the reasonable rental value of the property from the date repairs could have been reasonably completed to the date of the trial. Defendant argues that the instruction should have limited the award to the sum of $500.00 — the amount stated in the petition as the total amount of lost rentals up to the date of its filing.
The foregoing assignment comes too late for consideration. No specific objection was made to Instruction No. I for the reasons now urged, either at the trial or in defendant’s motion for a new trial, and no-point concerning the alleged error was contained in defendant’s brief or made in oral-argument. For those reasons, we now decline to consider the assignment. The motion otherwise is considered and overruled.