Court Opinion

ID: 9528107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:37:08.106464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:30.632334
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing raises the point that the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court is erroneous in that on the basis of our holding the proper measure of damages should have been the difference between *875the amount actually received for the crop and what the plaintiff would have received had there been proration.
In our opinion filed herein we held that the plaintiffs’ damage was shown to have been due to defendant’s discrimination and failure to prorate. However, at the trial, the defendants offered no evidence to show that the extent of the plaintiffs’ damage would have been other than the amount awarded in the event there had been proration.
The question with respect to the question of damages not having been raised in the trial court, cannot be urged for the first time here on appeal, and the issue on this point does not affect the basis of our holding.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 8, 1947. Schauer, J., voted for a hearing.