*1 (Tеx. REPORTER 204 SOUTHWESTERN 798 disposed we have market and actual of a verdict same at that to sanction which value аp- good by place, delivery by an induced at reason to believe was the thereof time pеllants improper argument. contemplated, per was cord. $3 was judgment stated, is For the reasons the The court further price found that the contract reversed, per cord, cause and the remanded. of the 500 cords was $1.75 whereas market the value of same and actual Faker, delivery at cоntemplated, at the time thereof was per & STINE CLARK v. MUNDY FUEL CO. was Bach of $2.50 cord. (No. 1998.) findings supported by testimony these in is Appeals judgment (Court of Texarkana. the record. The amount Civil of Texas. of the is 18, Rehearing, June fоr 1918. On Motion difference, by of the amount the found the 27, 1918.) June stated, price as court between the at whiсh — <@=1071(1) Harmless Appeal and Error appellants agreed appellee to wood to sell the Findings—Damages. Eeeoe — and the thereof market and actual value at judgment difference Wherе amount of was price by and court between contract Faker at the times it been found market the should have deliv- judgment thereof, and actual value the appellee. being true, ered there tо This tbe find- not be of further should disturbed because judgment disturbed, if should not be even it profits ing plaintiff that would have made appeared erred, judgment, amounting contract had been that and we think the court if the the sum of the to performed. not, appellee that he did would have sum of when he found also County; Court, Camp рrofits amounting Appeal District to the from made Ward, Judge. by selling judgment A. the wood to the J. Mundy by Mundy, customers, appellants the Fuel same Jeff as his had Action delivered Judgment against they agreed Company, him to. ‘Stine & Clark. to as plaintiff appeal. judgment for Affirmed. The and defendants is affirmed. rehearing. Motion overruled. On motiоn for Rehearing. for On Motion Taylor, Taylor, Henrietta, Allen & of for argument support in In the of the motion Englеdow, Pittsburg, appellants. Bass & of objec- opinion in the that the statement the the appellee. for urged judgment to “all on the tions theory were profits it was the court by that for WITjRSON, ap- This a C. J. was suit thought appellee might by selling have made pellee, Mundy, Jeff carried on business who appellants agreed, to his customers the wood but as “Mundy in as Fuel Clark, appellee’s in the name a dealer wood failed, him,” сhallenged to deliver to is against Company,” F. Stine and J. W. incorrect, attention and is called to judgment thе in in which was rendered appellants assign- in their damages fact that fourth $3,876.68as favor for the complаined finding ment of the of the trial appellants entitled to recover of be- he was (as “actual” сourt with reference to the tinguished dis- by a them their undertak- cause of breach ing of by “market”) from said cоurt the him, to and on to sell and deliver load of 5,000"cords wood, value wood. cars, Faker, the or of оn be- at predicated 1, 1914, action of this court The was because a fore and of Decembеr mainly upon finding undertaking the that by the wood had a them of their sell breach t.o Faker, market value at аnd that that appellee market on cars and cords to at Faker deliver 500 price appellee pay value the by 1, exceeded was to By the of wood June 1914. terms adjudged the the sum in contrаcts, for wood his favor. of were in of the both which writ- finding by appellants If that was warranted the ing, appellee pay per testimo- $2 was to think, ny, thought yet was, and 5,000 per we and it it is car $1.50 cord the cords and for judgment the re- loading cars, per obvious not have been should on $1.75 for same and cord finding Appellants vеrsed because the of the trial court on cars. 500 cords loaded for the distinguished “actual,” (by as only 1,152 5,000 аs to the that appellee to the of delivered court) “market,” wood, agreed by from the finding value of the they to deliver Decem- cords had appellee any that 1914, his would have or made 1, to dеliver of the and failed ber 500 cords profits judgment by agreed by in the amount of the they a had to deliver June wоod, been of the had same delivered 1, resale 1914. compliance máy contracts, jury. in with him the to not to court without a trial was the The objections by appellants have been warranted. urged to the The theory is motion overruled. judgment The it on the that for all was are thought might appellee .profits have the court selling by his customers the wood made appellants agreed, to & v. BEALL CAVITT IMPLEMENT failed, HARDWARE to deliver but to 5913.) (No. C O. profits argument that such were is him. The recoverable, remote, Appeals (Court Civil of becausе “too uncer- of Texas. not Austin. April 25, Rehearing. Denied 1918. speculative.” ) tain, court found . The that and 22,May 1918. 3,848 рrice which of the cords the contract <@=338— and Executors Administrators 1. 1, by agreed appellants delivеr to December oe Sale Land —Parties—Intervention. all, 1914, deliver at $2 but failed to was purchased hаd of One interest who some of Faker, right per at whereas the loaded on cars in a tract of land had heirs the to cord have Key-Numbered Digests topic
—.Urn- in eases see same KEY-NUMBER all and Indexes other and