Court Opinion

ID: 9828143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:08:38.969585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:44.586035
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing, our attention has been called to several mistakes in our statement of the record in the original opin*1052ion, the correction of which requires us to grant the motion and affirm the judgment of the district court.
One of the mistakes occurs in what was said in considering the third assignment of error, and consists in the statement that “It is neither alleged nor shown that defendant was informed or knew, either when the cattle were tendered it for shipment or when they were actually shipped, that plaintiff’s ultimate intention was to ship them from places of pasturage to Kansas City. Another is in our assumption that it was not shown that there was no market value of the cattle at Cedar Point and Elmdale at the time the cattle should have arrived there, had it not been for the defendant’s delay in shipping, and at the time they were actually delivered there.
[6] Inasmuch as the court expressly excluded from the jury any damage that may have accrued after the cattle were delivered at Elmdale and Cedar Point, the first mistake indicated is primarily immaterial in everything save the admission of the evidence as to the condition of the cattle when they arrived in Kansas, after being shipped there, and in view of that part of the court’s charge it becomes immaterial whether such testimony was properly admitted or not, for it could not possibly affect the verdict.
[7] Inasmuch as it was proved that there was no market value of the cattle at the points to which they were shipped, and there was evidence showing their real or intrinsic value there, there was no error in the court’s charging the jury to find as damages the difference between the intrinsic value of the cattle at the time they would have been carried to said points of destination, had it not been for the negligence of the defendant, and their intrinsic value at the time they were actually delivered there.
There is evidence reasonably sufficient to support the verdict on every issue submitted, and there is no error in the charge which can be justly complained of by appellant.
Therefore the motion is granted, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.