Alabama Iron-Works v. Hurley

• Decision Date: 17 January 1889
• Citation: 86 Ala. 217,5 So. 418
• Parties: ALABAMA IRON-WORKS v. HURLEY ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

5 So. 418

86 Ala. 217

ALABAMA IRON-WORKS v. HURLEY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 17, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; LE ROY F. BOX, Judge.

Action by Hurley & Brown against the Alabama Iron-Works. Defendant appeals.

R H. Pearson, for appellant.

White & Weakley, for appellees.

STONE C.J.

The Alabama Iron-Works agreed in writing with Hurley & Brown to manufacture for them, and furnish to them "in such quantities as may be required by said Hurley & Brown," certain machines known as the "Hurley Fertilizer Distributer," at five dollars apiece, the machines to be put up in good style and workmanship. By the contract "Hurley & Brown agreed to pay one-half of said price accompanying the order, the balance when the goods are ready for delivery." The foregoing is the substance of the contract, dated January 13, 1888.

On the day the contract was entered into the uncontroverted testimony is that one order for 25 machines was placed, and with it $40 as an advance payment. This, it is shown, was accepted by the Alabama Iron-Works as a sufficient advance payment for this order. Soon afterwards two other similar orders were placed of 25 machines each, and with each of them $50, which were also accepted as sufficient advance payment. The present action by Hurley & Brown counts on an alleged breach of said contract- First, in not manufacturing and delivering the machines; and, second, in delivering only six machines, which were of inferior material and workmanship. The testimony, with little, if any conflict, tends strongly to show that the Alabama Iron-Works violated and broke its contract, and the chief question contested was the measure of damages.

Pending the negotiations, if the testimony of Brown be believed, (it was not controverted,) the officers of the Alabama Iron-Works were informed that many of the machines ordered were for sale and use in Louisiana. One of the orders was for that market. There was no error in receiving proof of the market value of the machines in Louisiana, for two reasons: First, it was the same as the proven value in Alabama, plus the transportation. This testimony could not possibly do any injury, as it was, at most, redundant. Second.

It was right in itself, for the Alabama Iron-Works were notified of the market for which they were intended, and that intended use thereby became an element of the injury sustained. Snow v. Manufacturing Co., 69...