Doud, Sons & Co. v. Duluth Milling Co.

• Decision Date: 16 October 1893
• Citation: 56 N.W. 463,55 Minn. 53
• Parties: DOUD, SONS & CO. v. DULUTH MILLING CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

55 Minn. 53

56 N.W. 463

DOUD, SONS & CO.

v.DULUTH MILLING CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 16, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1.The complaint in this action contained an allegation that defendant had violated the terms of a contract between them, and that by reason thereof plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for anticipated profits.Held, that the terms of such contract did not authorize the recovery of such damages.Held, also, that the allegation upon this point in the plaintiff's complaint was immaterial, and that the judgment of the court below for the amount inserted in its judgment as damages for anticipated profits was unauthorized and void.Held, further, that defendant's omission to answer or appear was only an admission of the facts properly pleaded.

2.The complaint contained one good cause of action,-$1,157.38.Judgment modified.

Appeal from district court, St. Louis county; Ensign, Judge.

Action by Doud, Sons & Co., a corporation, against the Duluth Milling Company, for a breach of contract by which plaintiff agreed to manufacture and deliver, and defendant agreed to receive, a certain quantity of flour barrels.Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals.Modified.

McKusick & Grannis, for appellant.

John A. Keyes, for respondent.

BUCK, J.

This action was brought in the district court of St. Louis county to recover damages for alleged breach of a contract ezntered into between the partiesMay 2, 1891.One of the alleged causes of action is for money expended and labor performed pursuant to the terms of a written contract, which is made a part of the complaint.It is conceded by the counsel for the appellant that this court cannot disturb the judgment of the court below, to the amount of $1,157.38, rendered for such money expended and labor performed by plaintiff for the defendant by virtue of the terms of their contract.But the plaintiff seeks to recover as damages a large sum, in the nature of anticipated profits, for nonperformance by the defendant of the terms of said contract, and did so recover in the court below; the total judgment there rendered upon both of the alleged causes of action being the sum of damages, $7,045.38, and costs taxed $16.80; total judgment, $7,062.18,-of which amount, $1,157.38 was for money expended and labor performed.The controversy is over the damages claimed for anticipated profits.The court below allowed this claim, and the amount so allowed forms a part of the judgment above described.

The appellant insists that this was error, upon the ground that such damages were too remote, speculative, and uncertain, and did not constitute the basis of a legal claim, and that, by the very terms of the contract, no such damages...