Court Opinion

ID: 9828645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:35:25.067162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.407479
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant, in its motion for rehearing, again urges upon this court that the evidence forms no basis for the verdict of the jury, and no basis for fixing any damages whatever, and in á motion for findings of fact on this issue urges that this court should find, as a fact, that the evidence does not support the verdict. To this contention we cannot agree.
The brick was sold to appellees on a guaranty that they would hold their color, and that consequently the walls of a house built of such brick would not become mottled or discolored. The evidence shows that from one-third to one-half of the brick did not hold color, but began to discolor during the time they were being used. When this fact was called to the attention of appellant’s agent, it was insisted that the brick would do as guaranteed and, under this insistence, appellees continued the use of the brick in the house.
 If the brick had not been used, and it was shown that from one-third, to one-half of the brick did not measure up to the guaranty, and as there was no evidence as to the value of this portion of the brick, then under such condition perhaps appellant is correct in its view that there was no basis for the finding of the jury as to the value of the discolored "brick. That, however, does not present the issue as to appellees’ damages in the case made, both by appellees’ pleadings and the evidence. Such case is that, on the faith of appellant’s guaranty, brick was bought as of a fast color, and used in the house on the faith of this guaranty. We hold the measure of damages, where the brick were all used in a house, to be the difference in the value Of the entire amount of brick bought and the contract price, and this in effect is the measure of damages submitted to the jury. The undisputed evidence showing that from one-third to one-half of the brick had become discolored, and by reason thereof had marred the appearance of the house, is sufficient to give to the jury a basis for the verdict returned. This verdict is that the brick as furnished appellees was worth 50 per cent, of the costs of the brick if they had measured up to the guaranty. In other words, the jury concluded that the brick used in a house, and in which from one-half to two-thirds of such brick measured up to the guaranty, was worth only one-half as much as brick measuring up to the guaranteed quality purchased.
The motions for rehearing and for other findings of fact are overruled.