Mace v. Ramsey

• Decision Date: 31 January 1876
• Citation: 74 N.C. 11
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: F. BORDEN MACE v. ISAAC RAMSEY.

74 N.C. 11

F. BORDEN MACE

v.ISAAC RAMSEY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1876.

Where one violates his contract, he is liable only for such damages as are caused by the breach; or such as being incidental to the act of omission or commission, as a natural consequence thereof, may reasonably be presumed to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made:

Therefore, where A contracted to furnish B a boat at a specified time, to be used by B in conveying excursionists to and from different points in Beaufort harbor--an excursion train being expected to arrive at such specified time--in an action against A for damages on account of the breach of his contract: It was held, That the measure of damages would be what a boat like A's would be worth at such time, if he, (A.) knew of the excursion and the use to which B intended to put the boat. And in arriving at that value, the jury might consider the capacity of A's boat, state of the weather, &c.

Held further, That evidence was admissible to show that the plaintiff had engaged enough passengers for this boat and his other boats on the occasion.

( Ashe v. DeRossett, 5 Jones 299; Foard v. Railroad Co., 8 Jones 235; Boyle v. Ruder, 1 Ired. 607; Sledge v Reid, 73 N. C. Rep. 440 cited, distinguished from this, and approved)

This was a CIVIL ACTION, tried before McKay, J., at Spring Term, 1875, of CARTERET Superior Court.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant contracted with him on July 5th, 1873, to furnish a flat-boat and hands on the 16th of July, 1873, for the plaintiff's use on the 16th, 17th and 18th days of that month, to transport passengers or excursionists from Morehead City to Beaufort and different points about the harbor, an excursion train being expected at Morehead City on the morning of the 16th, and that the defendant failed to comply with his contract.

There was a conflict between the testimony of the plaintiff and that of the defendant, the plaintiff swearing that it was an unconditional contract and the defendant swearing that he agreed to furnish the boat and hands if the boat was at home on that day. Other witnesses testified as to the contract. The price agreed upon between the parties for the use of the boat was $4.00 per diem, which was proved to be the usual price of such boats.

The case as decided in this court is so fully stated in the opinion of Justice BYNUM that any further statement is deemed unnecessary.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, assessing his damages at $210.

The defendant moved the court to grant a new trial upon the following grounds:

1. The admission of improper testimony;

2. Misdirection to the jury;

3. Refusal to give instructions asked.

The motion was overruled by the court, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff; thereupon the defendant appealed.

Green, for the appellant .

Hubbard and Haughton, contra .

BYNUM, J.

The terms of the contract were disputed and it was left to the jury to ascertain what was the contract. Their finding establishes that it was unconditional and as follows: On the 5th of July, 1873, the defendant contracted with the plaintiff to furnish a flat boat and hands, on the morning of the 16th July for the plaintiff's use on the 16th, 17th and 18th of July to transport passengers, or excursionists from Morehead City to Beaufort, and different points about the harbor, an excursion train being expected at Morehead on the morning of the 16th of July. The price agreed upon for the use of the boat was $4.00 per day. The boat was not furnished, and the question was as to the amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

As evidence of his damages the plaintiff offered to prove that an excursion train was expected to arrive with a large number of excursionists at Morehead City on the morning of the 16th of July, and that the plaintiff had engaged passengers for this and his other boats, and had received money to the amount of $600 dollars, which he was compelled to refund.

The defendant objected to the admission of this evidence, and the court rejected so much of it as related to the receipt and repayment of the $600, but admitted so much as related to the excursion for the purpose of showing that the plaintiff had engaged passengers enough for this and his other boats.

The defendant asked the court to give the jury the following special instructions:

1. That the damages should not exceed the trouble and expense of hiring such a boat as the defendant's, at the Morehead City wharf, on the arrival of the party.

2. That he could recover only such amount as would cover the loss he would have suffered, in a fair competition that morning with other boats for the public patronage, irrespective of the forestalling resorted to by him, in the previous engagement of passengers.

3. That the damages should be measured by an indemnity for the moneys actually expended, and a reasonable compensation for work and services performed in preparing for the transportation of passengers.

The court without responding to each instruction asked for, gave a general charge to this effect: The measure of damages would be only what a boat like the defendant's would be worth at such a...