Court Opinion

ID: 9827487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:35:49.252798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:32.145461
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is insisted by the appellants strenuously that we erred in holding that the trial court, from the record, was justified in holding that appellant as agent for the government appeared in the trial court. We see no reason for changing our ruling on 'that point. After the present act of Congress took effect, Hines was appointed as agent of the government and as such represented it in this action, and upon his removal Payne was appointed. The government was represented under the last act through its then agent, Hines, and by order of the trial court Payne was substituted as his successor. We think the record sufficient to show the attorneys who represented Hines were the attorneys for the government and they continued to represent it through Payne. See Payne v. Stockton (Ark.) 229 S. W. 44.
The appellant questions our conclusion as to the effect of Stone’s evidence on market value, under the fifth assignment of error. The question was asked him:
“Did that character of coal have a market value at the various places of destination, as shown there at the time it was delivered? Did it have a market value there? A. Sure. It has the market value of the mine cost plus freight. Q. Do you know what the market value was? A. Yes. I know this way that coal is something — ”
The court then asked some questions. As we construe his answer to the court, the market value of the coal was the mine price and that his company was charged whatever price was in effect at the time of shipment. The witness in effect stated the coal had a market price, which was the price paid plus the freight, and when asked if he knew said, “Yes,” and then proceeded to show how he knew. The answers were sufficient to permit him to give the market price. How he knew was only material as to the weight of his evidence. Because the market price happened to be the same as cost and carriage did not negative the fact that that was toot the market price. This witness was an extensive dealer in the commodity at the various points of delivery, and evidently was fully acquainted with the market values. Certainly cost and carriage did not injure the appellant; there was no profit charged; that is, its value was not fixed at the selling price to the consumer. We think the court was justified in admitting the testimony of the witness as to the value of the coal lost.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.