Court Opinion

ID: 9830469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:14:06.259961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:23.365474
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee insists that we erred in stating that the court directed the jury to find for appellees upon the second contract. We were led into making this statement by appellant’s brief. Upon a review of the entire record, we are not sure whether the court directed a verdict based upon the first or second contract; but we are reasonably certain that he could not have directed it under that count of plaintiff’s pleadings seeking to recover upon a quantum meruit. If, however, the trial court was of the opinion that plaintiff was entitled to recover *1163$1,211.10 upon the quantum meruit, the record furnished us no basis upon which we can, by calculation, arrive at such an amount, and upon that theory of the case it was purely a question of fact for the jury, and the error of the court in directing a verdict is all the more apparent.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
BOYCE, J., not sitting.