delivered the opinion of the court.
The reсord shows that, relying upon the promise and agreements mentioned, the plaintiff in error took possession of the hotel and the furniture, and proceeded to incur considerable exрense with a view to conducting the hotel business, which was his purpose in purchasing the furniture and the unexpired lease, which was to run until April, 1910, with an option in favor of the lessee of continuing the samе two years longer.
The agreements between the parties were entered into July 10, 1909, and in September, 1909, the plaintiff in error was evicted from the hotel property by a judgment of the Corpоration Court of the city of Lynchburg in favor of the owner in an action of unlawful detainer. No defеnse to this action was made by the defendants in error, but, at their instance, the trustee in the deed of trust sold at public auction, in September, 1909, the furniture that had been thereby pledged to the satisfaction of the notes given for the balance outstanding on the purchase of the furniture. Therеupon this suit was brought to recover the damages sustained in consequence of the failure оf the defendants in error to comply with their agreements. The amount of damage claimed was $1,429.58, but the jury evidently cut out an item of $200.00 claimed for salary, and returned a verdict for $1,229.58. The record shоws that the circuit court, of its own motion, and over the protest of the plaintiff in error, reducеd the damages found by the jury to the sum of $619.26, and gave judgment for that amount. To that judgment this writ of error was awarded.
The sole question presented for our consideration is the propriety of the action of the circuit court in reducing the damages found by the jury. The record sheds no light on this subject. If fails to suggest any reason why the court should have cut the damages found by the jury in half, and given judgment only for the rеduced amount.
The defendants attempted to defend the action uрon the ground that they had not undertaken to assign the lease, and that, if they had agreed to do so, the plaintiff had suffered no damage, because the lease was of no value.
The cаse was fairly submitted to a jury, and their verdict rendered, based upon ample evidence to suрport their conclusion-. The practice which permits the court to reduce a verdiсt to an amount deemed reasonable and proper is a wise one, and it should not lightly be interfered with. The court cannot, however, in this matter act arbitrarily. Generally, the record must show the grounds relied on in support of such action, otherwise it cannot be upheld. The assessment of damages is peculiarly the province of the jury, and when the-question before the jury is merely аs to the quantum of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled, and there is evidence to sustain the verdict fоund by the jury, no mere difference of opinion, however decided, justifies an interference with the verdict for that cause. Southern Mutual Ins. Co. v. Trear, 29 Gratt. (70 Va.) 255.
In the present case, as before stated, all of the items of dаmage claimed could have legitimately resulted from the breach by the defendants of their contract. Upon the evidence, the question before the jury was as to the quantum of damages, and the record furnishes no ground for interfering with the settlement of that question by their verdict.
The verdict of thе jury was for $1,229.58, and the judgment of the court thereon was for $619.26, leaving $610.32 of the verdict for which no judgment was givеn. The judgment complained of, in so far only as it failed to include the $610.32, which was necessary to cover the whole verdict, must therefore be reversed, and this court will enter its judgment in favor of the рlaintiff, C. C. Hoffman, against the defendants in error for said sum of six hundred and ten 32-100 dollars, with interest thereon from thе 27th
Reversed in Part.