Page:Dakota Territory Reports.djvu/51

 not agreed to build the mill, and strongly corroborates the statement of Fraley, at least so far as to prove that up to that time Fraley understood the building of the mill to be a part of the considerations for the land. Fraley and Bentley agree that Bentley and Andrews declined to give the bond, but each assigns a diflFerent reason for the refusal, Bentley says they declined because they had not agreed to build the mill, and Fraley says they declined, and gave as a reason that they were going to getting out the timber at once, and that their word was good for what they had agreed to do. But another important item, as evidence, bearing upon this matter of agreement to build the mill, is the second allegation of the answer of defendant Bentley. He there states that to induce Fraley to sell Bentley and Andrews this land, W. A. Burleigh gave Fraley a property interest of one hundred dollars. This is also proved by Burleigh himself—that he was desirous of having a steam saw-mill built, and to help the matter along and get the mill, he gave Fraley some landed interest.

The evidence, then, is clear that it was understood by all the parties that this steam saw-mill was to be built in the spring or summer of 1866, and we think the preponderance of the evidence is so strongly in favor of the plaintiff, that it was a part of the agreed consideration for the purchase of the land in question, that the mill should be built, that the court below was justified in so finding.

It is with much zeal argued that there was no description or kind of mill agreed upon, and no time that the mill should remain on the land. We need only apply a good common sense rule to settle this question. A good steam saw-mill, as ordinarily understood, would be a mill capable of doing such work, and to such amount, as is ordinarily done by good mills; the words "good mill" have a reasonably definite meaning. But we are told there is no rule applicable by which the damages in this case can be assessed; that the benefits to be derived by plaintiff, if any, were remote, speculative or fanciful.

We think not. Fraley swears he asked one thousand ($1000) dollars for the land, and the evidence shows it was