Court Opinion

ID: 9830775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:28:03.535278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.601132
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Morehead Company is correct in the assertion that Morrison nowhere pleaded as a defense the discrepancies already noted between its trial petition and the several mortgage instruments, concerning the machinery in suit. The testimony of defendant '.(Morrison) is entirely insufficient *921to establish that the system delivered was of 400 lbs. condensation capacity per hour; and this necessary element of plaintiff’s proof does not otherwise appear in the record. The error in specifications can hardly be explained as “typographical”; but more logically suggests a material variance between pleading, proof and judgment-fundamental error. And although defendant’s plea of contract breach was predicated generally upon representations of Eggel-hof, yet his defensive allegations (paragraphs 14 and 15 amended answer and cross action) went further, we think, and raised issues on unsuitability of the equipment, following proper installation and test. Moreover, indulging every intendment fairly deducible from the record in favor of the party against whom peremptory instruction was here directed (defendant below), such mass of testimony, both written and oral, is so inconclusive as that we are unwilling for a judgment based thereon to stand. Eggelhof was also brought up on appeal, and judgment of reversal will likewise apply to him.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.