Hunt v. Oregon Pac. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1888 |
| Parties | HUNT v. OREGON PAC. RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Syllabus by the Court
The party injured by the breach of a contract is entitled to recover all his damages, including gains prevented, as well as losses sustained, provided such damages may fairly be supposed to have been within the contemplation of the parties when they made the contract, and are certain, both in their nature and in respect to the cause from which they proceed.
The plaintiff sues the defendant for damages on an alleged breach of a contract whereby the former agreed, in consideration of certain payment, to be made as the work progressed, to construct 52 miles of railway for the latter. The defendant sets up a counter-claim for the failure to construct the road, and claims damages therefor: (1) For the loss of the use of the road; (2) for the loss of certain freight which it had made 'arrangements' to carry over the road; and (3) for the sum it will cost to complete the road in excess of the contract price. On motion of plaintiff, the last two clauses were stricken out of the counter-claim; the one, as arising on a collateral contract not within the contemplation of the parties, and the other as being uncertain, and also contingent on the future construction of the road by the defendant.
George H. Williams, for plaintiff.
John W Whalley and William T. Muir, for defendant.
The plaintiff, a citizen of Ohio, brings this action against the defendant, a corporation formed under the laws of Oregon, to recover $160,000 damages for an alleged breach of a contract entered into by the parties on August 8, 1887, whereby the plaintiff, for a consideration therein specified, undertook to construct two sections of the defendant's railway, on the eastern extension thereof, one of 42 miles in length, and the other of 10; the first 20 miles to be completed by November 15, 1887, the next 22 miles by April 1, 1888, and the last 10 by May 1, 1888. The breach alleged is that the defendant wholly failed to make payments on the work as it progressed, according to the agreement, or to furnish transportation, iron, steel, or ties, as provided therein wherefore the plaintiff was compelled to give up the performance of the contract after doing $80,000 worth of work thereunder, and did quit the work on December 12, 1887.
The answer of the defendant was filed April 5, 1888, and contains a counter-claim, miscalled a 'further defense,' founded on alleged breach of the contract in question by the plaintiff, wherein it is alleged that the plaintiff, after performing work and labor, and furnishing material to the estimated value of $50,643.56, failed and refused to comply with said contract, and about December 10, 1887, abandoned the same, and notified defendant thereof; that the work is still unfinished, nothing having been done thereon since the abandonment by the plaintiff.
The counter-claim concludes with three demands for special damages (1) That the work cannot now be completed in less than a year, during which time the defendant will be deprived of the 'use and operation' of that portion of its road, to its damage, $50,000. (2) That the defendant, relying on the good faith of the plaintiff in the premises, made 'arrangements' to carry over its road from the eastern terminus of the portion the plaintiff agreed to construct 'a large amount of freight to and from the seaboard, at Yaquina bay, Or., during the season of 1888, to wit to the amount of $50,000; and that, owing to the failure of the plaintiff to perform his contract, the defendants cannot carry said freight, to its damage, $50,000. (3) That the defendants will be compelled to pay out large sums of money in excess of the contract price to complete the work that the plaintiff undertook, and in so doing will be put to a large amount of trouble and expense, to its damage $100,000.
The plaintiff moves to strike out of the counter-claim each of these claims for damages, and the allegations in which they are set forth, because they are (1) 'irrelevant and immaterial,' and (2) 'for conjectural or speculative damages.'
The questions involved in this motion have been thoroughly argued by counsel. The difficulty in this and like cases lies, not in the ascertainment of the law of the subject, but the application thereof. 1 Sedg.Dam. 65.
Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant both cite and rely on the cases of Griffin v. Colver, 16 N.Y. 489, and Snell v. Cottingham, 72 Ill. 161.
In the New York case it was held that, on a breach of contract to deliver a steam-engine at a certain day, for the purpose of driving a planing-mill and certain other machinery, the ordinary rent or hire which could have been obtained for the use of such mill and machinery, the operation of which was suspended for a week for want of the engine, might be recovered as damages, but not the estimate of what might have been earned by the use of the engine and machinery in the meantime, had the contract been complied with.
In the course of an able and interesting opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burke Construction Co. v. Board of Improvement of Paving District No. 20
...district but also for the benefit of surety of the construction company, and this remedy is, by many courts, held as exclusive. 105 F. 741; 36 F. 481; 158 F. 850; N.Y.S. 548. Whether in this case the remedy be held to be the sole remedy or merely optional, it is clear that the ordinary reme......
-
Dover Lumber Co. v. Case
...manner to perform the contract. (Sutherland on Damages, 3d ed., sec. 699; Dow v. Humbert, 91 U.S. 294, 23 L.Ed. 370; Hunt v. Oregon P. R. Co., 36 F. 481, 1 L. R. A. 842, 13 Saw. "Where the work is done under a contract fixing the price to be paid therefor, the contract price will generally ......
-
City of Kennett v. Katz Construction Company
...fixed another method of ascertaining said measure of damages. Surety Co. v. Woods, 45 C.C.A. 282; Simmons v. Whitman, 113 Mo. 357; Hunt v. Railroad, 36 F. 481. Fifth, entering into a new and supplemental contract materially affecting and materially changing the whole plan of construction wi......
-
J. P. Smith Shoe Company v. Curme-Feltman Shoe Company
...result of the breach, and not to such as are the certain result but uncertain in amount." In Hunt v. Oregon, etc., R. Co. (1888), (C. C.) 36 F. 481, 1 L. R. A. 842, it is stated that: "The tendency of judicial decisions seems to be in favor of allowing a party to show, if he can, that he ha......