Court Opinion

ID: 9830175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:56:43.961507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:14.889940
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[1] Upon further consideration, we have concluded that we fell into error in holding that we did not have jurisdiction in this cause.
Plaintiff’s petition herein alleged the amounts which he claimed by virtue of the three transactions with reference to the cows in the aggregate. We were of the opinion that the second transaction canceled the’ contract with regard to the first cow, and that the only amount in controversy was the expenses incurred with reference to the-third cow, the amount paid, and the note sought to be canceled, which, as stated in, our opinion herein, was less than $200. However, our attention has been called to the-fact that there is an exhibit to plaintiff’s-petition, and made a part thereof, which-reads as follows:
“That during all the time plaintiff fed said' respective cows from August 18, 1919, to September 29, 1920, plaintiff purchased at least one sack of meal per week at the reasonable market price of $1.85 per sack, * * * and that during said time she purchased for said respective cows and fed them per week 1% bales of hay, which plaintiff purchased at the reasonable price of 75 cents per bale; * * * that the reasonable value of the services of plaintiff in feeding, earing for, and looking after said respective cows was and is 30 cents per day; * * * and that the market value of the milk per day from said cows was not more-than 7% cents per pint, or a total of 10 cents-per day.”
The petition shows the number of days-that the plaintiff fed, milked, and cared for the last cow. Thus it will be seen that the amount in controversy, as alleged by the petition, is the
Price paid for the cow.$ 90 00
The note in question. 40 00
Medical attention for last cow. 3 00
Peed for last cow, 6 months and 21 days. 80 32
Personal services at. 60 00
Total . $273 32
Less value of milk for 6 months and 21 days 20 Id
Total .$253 22.
—besides interest.
[2] We are inclined to think that we were in error in holding that plaintiff’s petition *113showed that he was entitled to recover only for the transaction with reference to the last cow.
The court below sustained a general demurrer, and this appeal is from that judgment. It may perhaps become a question of fact upon another trial of this cause whether the sale of the first cow was a sale and guaranty of that cow as to quantity of milk, and that the sale of the second and third cows were separate transactions, or whether the whole transaction was the sale of a cow, guaranteed to give a certain quantity of milk, and the delivery of the three cows at separate times in an attempted fulfillment of the one contract to furnish a cow giving a guaranteed quantity of milk.
For the reasons stated, the motion for rehearing is granted, and this cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
■ Motion granted.