The Peevyhouses sued Garland Coal and Mining Company for breach of contract after the defendant failed to perform restorative and remedial work as agreed in a lease contract for coal mining purposes. The trial court awarded the plaintiffs a lesser amount than what they sued for, and the appeal focuses on whether the court properly instructed the jury on the measure of damages. The issue is whether the measure of damages for breach of contract is the cost of obtaining performance of the work not done or the difference in market value before and after the work was performed. The court must determine the appropriate measure of damages in this case, considering expert testimony on the cost and nature of the work and the "diminution in value" of the farm resulting from the defendant's failure to perform as agreed. The court notes that principles of law based on reason and reality must be applied to these situations, and that the building and construction or grading and excavation analogies are not applicable to the lease contract in question. The primary purpose of the lease was to recover and market coal, and the provisions for remedial work were incidental to this main objective. The plaintiffs cite the Groves v. John Wunder Co. case, where the Minnesota court adopted the "cost of performance" rule instead of the "value" rule in a similar situation. However, the defendant relies on three previous cases where the "value" rule was followed instead of the "cost of performance" rule.

The defendant breached a coal mining lease by failing to fulfill obligations agreed upon in the contract, which the dissenting opinion argues was willful and not in good faith. The cost of performing the contract was reasonable and there were no unexpected conditions that would make performance unreasonable. The defendant received the benefits of the contract and cannot argue that the measure of damages should be the economic value of performance to the plaintiffs rather than the cost of performance. The defendant entered into the contract believing it would be economically advantageous to do so and must be held accountable for its breach.

The plaintiffs in the Peevyhouse case filed a Petition for Rehearing, alleging that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the total value of their farm, which includes lands beyond the 60 acres covered by the coal mining lease. The plaintiffs only described the 60 acres in their petition, and the defense objected to any testimony about improvements made to the plaintiff's property other than the 60 acres described in the petition, which the court sustained. The plaintiffs argue that they have not had their "day in court" due to the exclusion of evidence. However, the trial court properly excluded evidence concerning lands other than the 60 acres described in the petition because it was not within the scope of the pleadings. The plaintiffs tried their case based on the belief that the "cost of performance" was the only measure of damages and refused to recognize any other measure. The defendant presented evidence on the reduction in value of the property, which decreased from $60.00 to $11.00 per acre after the mining operation, and that the property's value would increase by $2.00 to $5.00 per acre after repairs were made.