Court Opinion

ID: 9832234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:44:20.810266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:44.519489
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[9] It is claimed in this motion that the ruling, that plaintiff was entitled to recover, on the contract, the entire damages for the breach thereof, measured by net profits which would have been realized therefrom had it not been breached by appellant, is in conflict with rulings, of other Courts of Civil Appeals, in Lone Star Canal Co. v. Cannon, 141 S. W. 799; Raywood Rice Milling Co. v. Wells, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 545, 77 S. W. 253; and Dunlap v. Raywood Rice, etc., Co., 43 Tex. Civ. App. 269, 95 S. W. 43. The two eases last named did not involve the question. In the Cannon Case there was no question that Cannon was not entitled to entire damages arising from the breach of the contract, and the question for decision was what was to be deducted, as expenses in order to arrive at what would have been the net profits, had the contract of the Canal Company been performed. The contract was between Cannon and the Canal Company. The Canal Company contracted with Cannon to furnish him water which, together with the natural rainfall, would be sufficient to properly irrigate the rice to be grown on a tract of land owned by Dr. Hawthorne, for which water Cannon was to pay the Canal Company one-fifth of the rice raised by him on the land. It appears, also, that Cannon was under a separate contract to pay Dr. Hawthorne one-fifth of the crop raised as rental for the land. The Court of Civil Appeals at Galveston, in effect and properly, held that, in ascertaining the damages in the suit between Cannon and the Canal Company, the one-fifth of the value of the crop which Cannon would have had to yield to Dr. Hawthorne had to be deducted as part of the expense of raising the crop. This would clearly be so, the same as if Cannon had agreed to pay Hawthorne a money consideration for the rent.
We think there is no real conflict between the ruling in that case and our ruling in this. The interest which Maddox had was an equitable one in the contract between appellant and plaintiff. His interest was in no sense a part of the expenses that would have been incurred in harvesting and marketing the hay. That plaintiff was entitled to recover the entire damage resulting from the breach of the contract, we think, is sufficiently shown in the opinion we have delivered. In any event, the question we have was not presented in the Cannon Case.
The other grounds of this motion for rehearing are not sustained.
The motion for rehearing is overruled, also the motion to certify.