Evans v. Moseley

Supreme Court of Kansas

Evans v. Moseley

124 P. 422, 87 Kan. 447, 1912 Kan. LEXIS 170

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 8, 1912

DocketNo. 17,719

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 124 P. 422 (Evans v. Moseley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Evans v. Moseley, 124 P. 422, 87 Kan. 447, 1912 Kan. LEXIS 170 (kan 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

[448]*448The opinion of the court was delivered by '

Mason, J.:

F. H. and H. J. Evans sued R. S. Moseley and E. .S. Downs for a failure to accept and pay for certain cattle which they had contracted to buy at a' stated price. The plaintiffs recovered judgment. Upon appeal a reversal was had because of the rejection of evidence concerning the market value of the cattle at Kansas City, and a new trial was ordered as to the amount of damages only. (Evans v. Moseley, 84 Kan. 322, 114 Pac. 374.) The defendants now appeal from a new award. Complaint is made of the refusal of the court to submit to the jury the question whether the •cattle which the plaintiffs offered to deliver to the defendants were of the kind or grade described in the contract, which referred to them as “good, smooth” cattle. The defendants maintain that they should have been permitted to show that the cattle tendered were not “good,- smooth” cattle, and that the plaintiffs’ damages should have been limited to the difference between the contract price and the market value of such cattle as the contract described.

We think that the trial court rightly excluded an inquiry into the issue suggested. It is true that the matter was not explicitly covered by the special findings made at the first trial. But at that trial the grounds of the refusal of the defendants to accept the cattle were fully gone into. This court held upon appeal that there was no error in the proceedings requiring a new trial, excepting with regard to the evidence of the market value, and that the new trial should be limited to the question of the amount of damages. This was in effect an affirmation of the judgment in all .respects excepting as to the amount of recovery. The .judgment necessarily implied a finding that the defendants were at fault in refusing to accept and pay .for the cattle that were tendered them. The judgment [449]*449in this aspect having been affirmed, any further investigation of that question was excluded. All subsequent inquiry was necessarily confined to the matter of the difference between the market value of these particular cattle and the contract price.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[448]*448The opinion of the court was delivered by '

Mason, J.:

F. H. and H. J. Evans sued R. S. Moseley and E. .S. Downs for a failure to accept and pay for certain cattle which they had contracted to buy at a' stated price. The plaintiffs recovered judgment. Upon appeal a reversal was had because of the rejection of evidence concerning the market value of the cattle at Kansas City, and a new trial was ordered as to the amount of damages only. (Evans v. Moseley, 84 Kan. 322, 114 Pac. 374.) The defendants now appeal from a new award. Complaint is made of the refusal of the court to submit to the jury the question whether the •cattle which the plaintiffs offered to deliver to the defendants were of the kind or grade described in the contract, which referred to them as “good, smooth” cattle. The defendants maintain that they should have been permitted to show that the cattle tendered were not “good,- smooth” cattle, and that the plaintiffs’ damages should have been limited to the difference between the contract price and the market value of such cattle as the contract described.

We think that the trial court rightly excluded an inquiry into the issue suggested. It is true that the matter was not explicitly covered by the special findings made at the first trial. But at that trial the grounds of the refusal of the defendants to accept the cattle were fully gone into. This court held upon appeal that there was no error in the proceedings requiring a new trial, excepting with regard to the evidence of the market value, and that the new trial should be limited to the question of the amount of damages. This was in effect an affirmation of the judgment in all .respects excepting as to the amount of recovery. The .judgment necessarily implied a finding that the defendants were at fault in refusing to accept and pay .for the cattle that were tendered them. The judgment [449]*449in this aspect having been affirmed, any further investigation of that question was excluded. All subsequent inquiry was necessarily confined to the matter of the difference between the market value of these particular cattle and the contract price.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 P. 422, 87 Kan. 447, 1912 Kan. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-moseley-kan-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack