Court Opinion

ID: 9828895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:49:53.415973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:54.175173
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing,
Upon further consideration, we are of the opinion that we were in error in sustaining the cross-assignment of defendants in error. This suit was brought upon a written contract dated December, 1909, wherein plaintiff in error agreed to sell to defendants in error, not a specified number of cattle, but all of his cattle in a certain pasture in Oklahoma, estimated at about 2,389 head, to be delivered about April 10, 1910, for the consideration of $33 per head. Had the plaintiff in error failed to deliver any of said cattle, the measure of damages would have been that stated in our opinion herein. But it is not contended that he did not deliver all of the cattle that he had in said pasture. The issue in this suit was as to how many he delivered; his contention being that he delivered 2,340 head, and the contention of defendants in error being that he delivered only 2,326 head. The testimony amounts to this, in substance: Plaintiff in error represented to Geo. B. Hendricks, one of the defendants in error, that he had delivered to Bruce Hendricks, the other defendant in error, 2,340 head of cattle on said contract, and guaranteed that number, and upon this Geo. B. Hendricks paid plaintiff in error $33 per head for that number. The court found that the number delivered was only 2,326 head, and gave judgment for the 14 head shortage at $33 per head, with interest from the date of such payment. In this we have concluded that the trial court wás correct. When Hendricks paid the money to plaintiff in error, he did not intend to purchase cattle for future delivery, but was paying for cattle that he supposed he already purchased and received. It was simply an overestimate of the number of cattle delivered on the contract, and the measure of damages is the money paid for the cattle in excess of those actually delivered.
We overrule the plaintiff in error’s motion for a rehearing as to so much of our judgment as sustained the judgment of the trial court, but grant said motion as to so much of our judgment as reformed the judgment of the trial court.
For the reasons stated, the judgment herein, heretofore rendered by us, is set aside, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.