Haskell v. Hunter
| Decision Date | 12 July 1871 |
| Citation | 23 Mich. 305 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Frederick Haskell and another v. Daniel F. Hunter and others |
Heard July 8, 1871 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Error to Ionia circuit.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Frederick Haskell and John Barker, against Daniel F. Hunter, Wilson Homer, Noah Hitchcock, Milton W. Taylor and Thomas Hubbard, to recover damages for breach of contract on the part of the defendants to sell and deliver to the plaintiffs, at the Michigan Central Railroad dock at Chicago, Illinois, at the opening of navigation, in 1864, or soon thereafter, one hundred and fifty thousand feet of first and second clear pine flooring at the price of twenty-six dollars per thousand feet, to be paid on delivery.
The cause was tried by a jury, and upon the trial, the plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to show that in the month of February, 1864, they purchased of the said defendants, one hundred and fifty thousand feet of pine flooring, consisting of two grades, first and second clear, and one-half of each kind; said lumber to be delivered at the Michigan Central Railroad dock, in Chicago, at the opening of navigation, or soon thereafter, at twenty-six dollars per thousand feet, to be paid for on delivery; that the said plaintiffs, at the time they purchased the said lumber, were engaged in the exclusive business of manufacturing railroad cars, and resided at Michigan City, Indiana, and purchased this lumber for the purpose of using it in their business exclusively that this contract for the sale and delivery of the lumber was negotiated and concluded by a series of letters between the parties; that said defendants, after repeated importunities, did, during the months of July and August 1864, send to the plaintiffs, by a mistake as to the route, by the way of Detroit to Michigan City, eighteen thousand two hundred feet of said lumber, for which the said plaintiffs were compelled to pay, as freight, thirteen dollars and twenty-nine cents per thousand feet in order to get it, as they wanted to use the same; that on August 16, 1864, the defendants drew on the plaintiffs for the sum of one thousand dollars at three days after sight, and at the same time communicated to the plaintiffs that they had just shipped sixty thousand feet more of the lumber to the plaintiffs; that at the time the said plaintiffs received the said draft of one thousand dollars, they had not received any of the lumber according to said contract, and they refused to honor said draft, for the reason that said lumber had not been delivered according to contract; that upon the refusal of the plaintiffs to honor said draft, the defendants stopped the sixty thousand feet of said lumber shipped as aforesaid, in transitu; that, after the stoppage thereof, the plaintiffs frequently, by letter, requested the defendants to deliver the whole amount of said lumber according to said contract, and that the defendants thereafter, to wit: on October 10, 1864, utterly refused to fulfill the said contract for the sale and delivery of the same; that on account of the failure of the defendants to deliver the lumber according to said contract, they were obliged to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Illinois Cent Co v. Crail
...his business, for in that event the measure of his loss would have been the retail market cost of the necessary replacement, Haskell v. Hunter, 23 Mich. 305, 309. But in the actual circumstances the cost of replacing the exact shortage at retail price was not the measure of the loss, since ......
-
Brown Coal Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
...purchase coal to supply the place of that not delivered, and pay therefor the retail rate; so the rule applied in Haskell v. Hunter, 23 Mich. 305, has no application. The true rule is the market price of goods of the kind specified, in the quantities specified, at the place of destination. ......
-
Brown Coal Co. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co.
...not actually purchase coal to supply the place of that not delivered and pay therefor the retail rate, so the rule applied in Haskell v. Hunter, 23 Mich. 305, has no application. The true rule is the market price of goods of the kind specified in the quantities specified at the place of des......
-
United States v. Palmer & Parker Co.
...his business, for in that event the measure of his loss would have been the retail market cost of the necessary replacement, Haskell v. Hunter, 23 Mich. 305, 309. But in the actual circumstances the cost of replacing the exact shortage at retail price was not the measure of the loss, since ......