On Motion for Rehearing.
In the argument in support of the motion the statement in the opinion that the objections urged to the judgment were “all on the theory that it was for profits the court thought appellee might have made by selling to his customers the wood appellants agreed, but failed, to deliver to him,” is challenged as incorrect, and attention is called to the fact that appellants in their fourth assignment complained of the finding of the trial court with reference to the “actual” (as distinguished by said court from the “market”) value of the wood.
The action of this court was predicated mainly upon the finding that the wood had a market value at Faker, and that that market value exceeded the price appellee was to pay for the wood the sum adjudged in his favor. If that finding was warranted by the testimony, and we thought and yet think, it was, it is obvious the judgment should not have been reversed because the finding of the trial court as to the “actual,” as distinguished (by that court) from the “market,” value of the wood, or his finding that appellee would have made profits in the amount of the judgment by a resale of the wood, had same been delivered to him in compliance with the contracts, máy not have been warranted.
The motion is overruled.