deliver an amount of rye equal to that which he had sold, and if at the time of the delivery the market price of rye was only $.75 per bushel, it is not difficult'to see that he would have gained about $.75 per bushel by the transaction. But, unfortunately for defendant, and contrary to his expectations, rye was not a lower price at the time he expected to market same, but continued to advance over the price for which he had sold the 10,000 bushels until it reached $2.05 per bushel, when defendant desired, no doubt, to terminate the loss, and procured the Elevator Company to purchase 10,000 bushels on the market, at which time his loss had reached $5,505. His prospective crop of rye did not materialize as he expected, and hence he could not deliver a sufficient number of bushels to cover the sale of the 10,000 bushels which he had made, and hence the only thing he could do to stop his loss was to buy rye in amount equivalent to the number of bushels which he sold. This he did.
It must also be noticed that the Elevator Company never received any benefit or profit from the transaction, and as the transaction was handled, there was no way in which it could make a profit on it. Certainly it is unbelievable that it would entail a great loss on itself without expectation or any possibility of profit to it. It is clear that it was handling the matter for the defendant as a "hedge," and not otherwise.
Other transactions of the defendant on the grain market which occurred prior to the one in question, and which are claimed to have been speculation, need no consideration here, as they have no bearing on the issues here involved.
As to defendant's second contention that there was a conflict of evidence on material issues which should have been submitted to a jury, it is only necessary to say that such conflict, if any, related only to the alleged direction of defendant to the Elevator Company relative to the application of a portion of the money received for the rye actually delivered to the Elevator Company. A certain amount of this money the Elevator Company applied upon defendant's account with it, and the balance upon the note as above stated. The defendant's contention is that he directed such money to be applied upon the note, and because the issues in this regard were not submitted to the jury, he contends there should be a new trial. Assuming, however, that the defendant is correct in his contention, and assuming further that this is the only relief a new trial would give defendant, and we think this assumption is true, we are clearly of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case, that would
