A special finding controls the general verdict of the jury when the two are conflicting: Section 155, Or. L., and annotations thereunder.

The contention of defendant is to the effect that plaintiff is not entitled to any judgment because he has sued upon a contract for a specific sum, and failing to prove that contract, he cannot recover in this action. The jury found that the plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendant all of his 1916 crop of potatoes. The bill of exceptions discloses that the 1916 crop of *504 potatoes raised and owned by tbe plaintiff amounted to between 1,400 and 1,500 bushels. He delivered to the defendant only 504 bushels. The defendant now contends that the' plaintiff having alleged a specific contract to sell to the defendant 504 bushels, and the jury having found that he agreed to sell and deliver about 1,500 bushels, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover for the 504 bushels actually delivered. But defendant’s answer refutes the position now taken by him on this appeal, for he alleges damages to the extent of $732.06 as a result of the alleged breach of contract by the plaintiff, and then avers:

“That the defendant should be permitted to offset against the aforesaid damages * * the value of the potatoes so delivered under said contract at the contract price” and demands judgment for $145.29.

The latter amount is the difference between the damages defendant claims to have sustained by reason of the alleged breach of contract and the value of the potatoes actually delivered by the plaintiff by virtue of that contract. The defendant is bound by his pleading. His answer admits the receipt of 504 bushels of potatoes, under the contract, for which he has not paid. He cannot now be heard to say that he should not compensate the plaintiff for the value of the potatoes actually received by him under the contract:

The only conflict in the testimony, as disclosed by the bill of exceptions, is the market value of potatoes at Silverton at the time the plaintiff breached the contract. The excerpts from the bill of exceptions set out disclose that the witnesses varied in their testimony from $1.50 to $1.90 per bushel. There was, therefore, a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant upon that point. That point in *505 volves a question of fact. The jury are the exclusive judges of the facts. The jury could fix the market value of the potatoes at the time of the breach of the contract at any price from $1.50 to $1.90 per bushel. The jury found by a general verdict and a special finding that the defendant was damaged in the sum of $333.27 by the nondelivery of the entire crop of potatoes. Their general verdict is for $253.50 instead of $586.77 demanded in the complaint. The verdict in favor of the defendant is the difference between the amount of damages assessed against the plaintiff and the amount demanded by the plaintiff. The bill of exceptions recites that the plaintiff sold 800 bushels of potatoes to a person other than the defendant. The sum of $333.27 represents the difference between the agreed price for the potatoes and the market value thereof as determined by the jury.

If the total crop of potatoes owned by the plaintiff was 1,400 bushels, he withheld from the defendant 896 bushels. Based upon that amount, the jury found the market price for the potatoes, at the time of the breach of the contract by the plaintiff, to be $1,527 per bushel. However, if the amount of the crop of potatoes which the plaintiff failed to deliver was only 800 bushels as the bill of exceptions indicates, the jury found the market price of the potatoes to have been $1.58 per bushel. Based upon either computation, the verdict is supported by the testimony. The amount of damages is to be determined by the jury. This court is bound by the verdict of the jury when based upon conflicting evidence: State Constitution, Article VII, Section 3c, Initiative Amendment of 1910; Sather v. Giaconi, 110 Or. 433, 440, 441 (220 Pac. 740). There is, there *506 fore, no necessary conflict between the general verdict and the special finding.

These considerations require the judgment appealed from to be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.