Billmeyer v. Wagner

• Decision Date: 06 October 1879
• Citation: 91 Pa. 92
• Parties: Billmeyer, Dill & Co. <I>versus</I> Wagner.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

91 Pa. 92

Billmeyer, Dill & Co. versus Wagner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 17, 1879.

October 6, 1879.

June 17th 1879.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY and STERRETT, JJ. WOODWARD, J., absent

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Union county: Of May Term 1879, No. 198.

Linn & Dill, for plaintiffs in error.—The loss complained of arose from the reliance which the defendants placed upon the plaintiff's fulfilment of his contract.

The true measure of damages is the actual loss which the vendee sustains by not receiving the advance on his contract price upon any contracts which he had made in reliance upon the fulfillment of the contract by the vendor: McHose v. Fulmer, 23 P. F. Smith 367; Collins v. Baumgardner, 2 Id. 461. The incurring of the expense was reasonable, relying on the truth of the plaintiff's representations as to the time of shipment and consignment Fisher v. Val de Travers Asphalte Co., 3 N. Y. Weekly Digest 366; Bennett v. Lockwood, 20 Wend. 223; Hadley v. Baxendale, 26 E. L. & E. 398; Dingee v. Hare, 7 C. B. N. S. 145.

Wolfe & Wilson and P. Hackenberg, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice STERRETT delivered the opinion of the court, October 6th 1879.

The contract between the parties was broken by the plaintiff below, in at least two particulars. Instead of consigning the lumber according to agreement, to the Phillipsburg Manufacturing Co., Hoboken, New Jersey, his agent, by mistake, sent it to the Jersey City Car Shops, in consequence of which it was delayed, and increased freight charges were incurred. He also agreed to to notify defendants when the lumber was loaded on cars, ready to move, so that they might promptly advise the Phillipsburg Manufacturing Company of the shipment. In this, also, a mistake occurred in notifying them two or three days before the lumber was actually loaded. These breaches of agreement, on the part of the plaintiff below, resulted in several days' delay in the receipt of of the lumber by the consignees, and consequent disappointment and outlay for which they demanded compensation in damages from defendants below, with whom they had contracted for the delivery of the lumber. The defendants in turn claimed to set-off against the plaintiff's bill the damages to which they had thus been subjected, as they alleged, by plaintiff's default.

One of the items of set-off was the excess of freight incurred by the misconsignment. This the consignees were compelled to pay in addition to what would have been required if the lumber had been properly consigned, and hence they were entitled to be reimbursed by the defendants below. It was conceded to be a proper matter of set-off, and was accordingly allowed.

Another demand made by the manufacturing company on defendants, and by them claimed as a set-off against plaintiff's bill, was for detention of a barge at Hoboken, awaiting the arrival of the lumber, and wages paid their foreman, during the time he remained idle for want of the lumber. Testimony tending to prove these allegations was offered and excluded by the court, and the jury were instructed to disregard these items of set-off, on the ground that they were too remote and not...