Loud v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 23 November 1872 |
| Citation | 26 Mich. 239 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Henry M. Loud, and others v. Colin Campbell and another |
Heard October 30, 1872
Error to Wayne circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
D. C Holbrook, for plaintiffs in error.
Newberry Pond & Brown, for defendants in error.
This suit was brought by defendants in error, upon an agreement for the charter of their vessel, the "Jane Ralston," by the plaintiffs in error.
A recovery was had in the court below, and the plaintiffs in error, who were there defendants, complain that the court erred in admitting certain parol evidence of the terms of the agreement, and in rulings relating to the duties of defendants in error under the agreement, and touching the measure of damages. The only witness in the case was the master of the vessel, and he testified, that, being at Detroit with the vessel, the plaintiffs in error, by Mr. Gay, one of their number, agreed with him to go to Au Sauble, where the plaintiffs in error were engaged in business, and take a load of lumber for them. The witness then stated that part of the arrangement so made was in writing, and he produced a paper which had been given to him on the occasion, by the plaintiffs in error, and which purported to be a statement by the firm at Detroit, to the firm at Au Sauble, and appeared to have been given to him to be carried to the business establishment of plaintiffs in error at Au Sauble, for their information.
This paper was of the following tenor:
Detroit, Nov. 18, 1869.
The paper having been read to the jury, the defendants in error were allowed, under objection, to show by the testimony of the witness, that, in addition to the matters stated in the paper, it was part of the agreement that the plaintiffs in error should have lighters, ready loaded with the lumber to be taken on board, and a tug fired up, ready to take the vessel in and out of the river, and to tow the lighters to the vessel and back.
The witness then further testified, that he at once took the vessel to Au Sauble, and anchored about a mile and a half from the mouth of the river; that he went from thence in his small boat to the mouth of the river, but did not go to the business office of the plaintiffs in error, which was about a mile distant; that it was not a time when offices were generally open; that the first duty in such cases is to report, and look after the safety of the vessel; that he was unable to say whether or not the plaintiffs in error had personal notice of his arrival, and that he had no time to deliver the paper.
He further testified that on getting to the mouth of the river, he called on one Dudgeon, who was foreman at the mills, who attended to the shipping of lumber and was accustomed to give orders to tugs, as to towing vessels in and out, and explained to him the nature of the arrangement, and informed him that the vessel was outside endeavoring to get a load of lumber for plaintiffs in error; that the vessel was then ready to load, and that he, the witness, wanted Dudgeon to furnish the promised facilities; that Dudgeon then replied, "Captain, we are all ready," and directed the master of the tug to leave the vessel at a named dock, where she could discharge the stone; that thereupon the tug fired up, proceeded to the vessel, and hitched on, but that the wind was blowing, and the tug could not control the vessel and keep her from going ashore, and accordingly let go and returned to the mouth of the river--the captain of the tug saying afterwards that the tug was out of order and unfit for use; that the vessel remained off the mouth of the river until the next day about noon, the weather being threatening and her position unsafe; that having then stayed there as long as he dared, he took the vessel to Detroit, without having unloaded the stone or taken on the lumber.
He also testified that the vessel would have carried two hundred and forty thousand feet; that the actual expense in going to Au Sauble and back was three hundred and forty dollars and seventy cents; that the actual expense which would have accrued in going to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emerson v. Pacific Coast & Norway Packing Company
...876. The letter and spirit of many other authorities are to the same effect. Mueller v. Bethesda, 88 Mich. 390, 50 N.W. 319; Loud v. Campbell, 26 Mich. 239; Leonard Beaudry, 68 Mich. 312, 36 N.W. 88; Pittsburg v. Ashton, 184 Pa. St. 36, 39 A. 223; Dennis v. Maxfield, 10 Allen, 138; Blair v.......
-
Nelson v. Hirschberg
...16 Pick. 196; 13 Sawyer, 516; 74 Wis. 425. Rule of damages: 49 Wis. 151; 52 Wis. 255; 59 Wis. 384; 67 Wis. 296; 63 Mich. 276; 51 Mich. 63; 26 Mich. 239; 14 Mich. 34. damage is the loss which the injured party has sustained. 110 U.S. 347; 121 U.S. 264. Appellee, having failed, was not entitl......
- Hurley v. Oliver
-
Hirschhorn v. Bradley
...“The measure of plaintiff's damages was the profits which Mueller might have realized if defendant had performed its contract. Loud v. Campbell, 26 Mich. 239;Leonard v. Beaudry, 68 Mich. 312, 36 N. W. 88. While it may be true that Mueller would not have disposed of as much of the article as......