Eastern Shore Brokerage & Commission Co. v. Messenger

²²² Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action, instituted by the appellees against the appellant, to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract, whereby the appellees^ the plaintiffs below, sold to the appellant, the defendant below, and the defendant purchased from the plaintiffs, twenty thousand dozen cans of Ho. 10 standard apples in water, at $5.62% per dozen, but the defendant refused to accept a portion of the goods, pursuant to the contract, and it is alleged that the plaintiffs were injured and damaged thereby. The plaintiffs are packers and canners of fruits and vegetables, with factories in Maryland .and Virginia, and with headquarters in Federalsburg, Caroline County, Maryland. The defendant is a corporation engaged in the general canned goods, brokerage and commission business in this State, with its principal office at Preston, in Caroline County, Maryland.

The suit was brought in the Circuit Court for Caroline County, but was subsequently removed to the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, and thence to the Circuit Court for Cecil County, where, upon trial, it resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $13,572.46. On motion for a new trial, a remittitur of $2,018.99 was allowed by the court and accepted by the plaintiffs, and a final judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs for $11,553.47. From this judgment the defendant has appealed. The declaration sets out substantially the contract, and alleges a breach by the defendant, in failing and refusing to comply with the terms of the contract.

The declaration avers that the plaintiffs at all times, as required thereunder, were ready, willing and able on their part to fully perform all their obligations under the terms of the contract, and pursuant to the contract the plaintiffs delivered to the defendant, and the defendant accepted from the plaintiff, between August 16th, 1919, and December 23rd, 1919, inclusive, a part of 'the goods named in said ²²³ •contract, for which part so delivered and accepted full settlement was made by the defendant, hut the defendant thereafter refused to< accept the remainder of the goods, and the plaintiffs were injured and wronged, and claim damages to the amount of $20,000. The hill of particulars., filed by the plaintiffs in the case, states that, pursuant to the contract sued on, the plaintiffs delivered to the defendant and the defendant accepted from the plaintiffs, between August 16th, 1919, and December 23rd, 1919, inclusive, eleven thousand, three hundred and five and one-half dozen No. 10 standard apples in water, for which full settlement was made by the defendant at the price named in the contract, but, on March 15th, 1920, it refused to accept any more,, and the plaintiff claims damages, for the refusal by the defendant to accept the balance of the twenty thousand dozen called for in the contract, said balance being eight thousand six hundred and ninety-four and one-half dozen, according to an account set out in the record. At the trial of the case, the defendant reserved eighteen exceptions to the rulings of the court. Seventeen of these were to the rulings of the court on evidence, and one to the rulings on prayers.

While the appellant relies., in its brief, upon the various exceptions to testimony, set out in the record, there are no reasons assigned or authorities cited, showing injurious or reversible error in any of the rulings of the court thereon. The appellant clearly cannot complain of, and was not injured by, the admission of the testimony of the witness Messenger, set out in the first bill of exception, because tbe same character of testimony was subsequently introduced by the defendant itself, and admitted, in the examination of the defendant’s witness Colbert. The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and seventeenth bills of exception relate to tbe rulings of the court, in admitting certain testimony as to the breach of the contract, and to the effort on the part, of the ²²⁴ plaintiff, to lessen the damages. This evidence, we think, was proper, competent, and admissible, and there was