Hughes v. Hood

• Decision Date: 31 July 1872
• Citation: 50 Mo. 350
• Parties: WILLIAM L. HUGHES et al., Appellants, v. JOHN G. HOOD et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

50 Mo. 350

WILLIAM L. HUGHES et al., Appellants,

v.JOHN G. HOOD et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1872.

Appeal from Johnson Court of Common Pleas.

Phillips & Vest, for appellants, cited in argument Mack v. Patchen, 42 N. Y. 167; Sedgw. Dam. 194 and notes, 201; Trull v. Granger et al., 4 Seld. 115; Kelly v. The Dutch Church of Schenectady, 2 Hill, 116; Fisher v. Goebel, 40 Mo. 475; Schlemmer v. North, 32 Mo. 206; Kinney v. Watts, 14 Wend. 38.

Elliott & Blodgett, for respondents, cited Sedgw. Dam. 86; Driggs v. Dwight, 17 Wend. 71; Lawrence v. Wardwell, 6 Barb. 423; Ward v. Smith, 11 Price, 19; Johnson v. Arnold, 2 Cush. 46.

ADAMS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

On the 12th day of February, 1869, the defendants leased to the plaintiffs a farm owned by them in Johnson county for one year, the lease to commence the 1st of March, 1869, at which time, by the terms of the lease, possession of the farm was to be given to the plaintiffs. When the time arrived to take possession the plaintiffs found a former tenant of the landlord holding over, who refused to surrender the possession, and it was agreed between the plaintiffs and defendants that the plaintiffs should bring a suit for the possession against the tenant holding over, the defendants to pay the attorney's fees. So the plaintiffs did bring an action for unlawful detainer against the party in possession, and recovered the possession and damages for the detention of the premises, etc.

The plaintiffs afterwards, notwithstanding this recovery, brought this suit on the covenant in the lease to deliver them the possession on the 1st of March, 1869. To this action the defendants set up the former suit and recovery as a defense in their answer. But the court, on motion, struck out this defense, and to this ruling of the court the defendants excepted. This defense being struck out, left nothing to try except the proper measure of damages. At the time the lease was executed the plaintiffs were non-residents of the State, residing in Indiana, and purchased farming utensils and removed their families with these utensils from their former residence to Johnson county, to enter into the possession of the leased premises, when they found it as above stated, in the possession of a former tenant. Although there is no covenant in the lease to indemnify them for the expenses of removal in case possession was not given according to the terms of the lease, yet they claimed such expenses by way of damages on the covenant to give possession, and also damages for loss on their farming utensils; and the court maintained that they must be allowed such expenses, etc., as part of the damages, and in addition thereto that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover whatever amount the premises might be worth to them over and above the rental value as fixed by the lease.

1. In my judgment these rulings of the court were erroneous. A party can recover only such damages as naturally result from a breach of the covenant sued on. He cannot recover remote or speculative damages not provided for by the contract. He can protect himself against such damages by requiring a provision to that effect to be inserted in the contract. If he fails to do this he can only recover what naturally results from a violation of the contract. What connection with this covenant has the plaintiffs' place of residence? It so happens that they resided in Indiana and had to remove to Missouri. This did not result from the terms of the contract. It made no kind of difference where they resided, or how much it cost to remove their families to Missouri. If they had resided in Europe or Asia, or some other remote country, it might have cost them ten times as much to remove here as...