Landlord and Tenant—Rental in Grain—Action upon Harvesting Contract—Counterclaim by Lessee.—In an action against the lessee of land, upon his contract to harvest the grain, the lessee may counterclaim all damages for plaintiff’s delay in performing the contract, whether accruing to him or to the owner of the land, to whom an undivided third of the grain was payable as rental, and the plaintiff cannot object that the defendant can only counterclaim his own proportion of the damages.

Id.— Contract Relation.—The contract having been made between the lessee and the harvester, the owner of the land has no contract relation with the harvester, and can have no cause of action against Mm, growing out of the contract.

Id.—Bad Husbandry. —If the owner of the land has a cause of action against the lessee for bad husbandry, that is no concern of the harvester and cannot be objected to by him.

Id.—Breach of Contract—Delay in Performance—Loss of Grain Shelled-out—Proximate Damage.—The loss of a large amount of the grain by the shelling-out thereof, owing to plaintiff’s breach of the contract by delay in its performance, which would have been saved if the harvesting had been commenced on time, is damage proximately caused by the breach of the contract, and is not remote and speculative.

Id.—Difficulty in Fixing Amount of Loss.—Where there was evidence sufficient to sustain the damages found by the jury, the fact that it was difficult to fix the amount of loss with accuracy, is not a ground of objection. He who breaks a contract cannot escape liability on account of the difficulty which his wrong has produced of devising a perfect measure of damages.

Id.—Loss of Grain Caused by Wind—Act of God.—The fact that much of the loss of the grain by shelling-out was caused by the wind, does not make the result an act of God; nor can the benefit of the rule against responsibility for damages caused by the act of God inure to the benefit of one who could have avoided the damage by complying with his contract.

Id.—Contemplation of Parties as to High Winds—Question of Fact. —The question whether high winds which caused the shelling-out of the grain were within the contemplation of the parties, when they entered into the contract for the harvesting of the grain, is a question of fact for the jury, and not of law for the court.