neapolis May 12th and 13th the market was in an unsettled condition; that it was unsettled on May 18th; that on May 12th he was offered 12 cents from one party for hides; that they could not sell these hides in Chicago on May 18th; that later they received an offer from another party of 12 cents for these hides, and on June 9th sold them to another party for 14 1/2 cents flat, natives and brands mixed. The defendant offered testimony to the effect that the market price on hides continued about the same until June; that, upon the refusal of the plaintiffs to allow dockage and to fulfill their contract, it purchased other hides, in place of the hides it should have received from the plaintiffs, on May 19, 1920, at 2034 cents and 1934 ecnts, which included three-fourths of a cent brokerage commission to the defendant. The defendant has specified many errors in the reception of the evidence and in the instructions of the trial court. In particular it contends that the trial court erred in receiving testimony concerning the market value of the hides after May 18, 1920, in permitting one of the plaintiffs to testify as to the Chicago market price on May 18th or thereabouts, in connection with the testimony of the market value on May 18th and of the sales made on different dates as throwing light thereupon; further, that the evidence is insufficient to establish a market price on May 18, 1920, so as to justify the verdict rendered by the jury.
In view of the question that is determinative of this appeal, in our opinion, it is unnecessary to further state the assignments of error or the evidence in connection therewith. We are of the opinion that the record {ails to show the market value of the hides for which a contract was made on May 18, 1920, so as to justify the verdict returned by the jury; further, that the trial court erred in receiving the evidence of one of the plaintiffs as to the market value of the hides in question on May 18, 1920, and in receiving other evidence of sales or of market value on a date different than May 18, 1920. Pursuant to the Uniform Sales Act. the measure of plaintiffs’ damages for loss in the price of the hides is the difference between the contract price and the market or current price at the time when the goods ought to have been accepted. Section 64, chap. 202, Laws 1917. See Mpls. Thresh. Mach. Co. v. McDonald, 10 N. D. 408, 187 N. W. 993. The representative of the defendant was present on that day for that purpose; the plaintiffs tendered such hides for acceptance, if at all, on that day; they commenced their action for breach of the contract on such day. The plafmtiffs attempted to assert and
