Mason v. Russenberger
| Decision Date | 08 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--126,76--126 |
| Citation | 542 S.W.2d 745,260 Ark. 561 |
| Parties | Ronald MASON et ux., Appellants, v. Lindsey S. RUSSENBERGER et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Richard J. Orintas, Little Rock, for appellants.
Matthews, Purtle, Osterloh & Weber by John I. Purtle, Little Rock, for appellees Lindsey C. Russenberger, Betty M. Russenberger, All-Ser-Vis Realty Co. and All-Ser-Vis Builders, Inc.
Spitzberg, Mitchell & Hays by Beresford L. Church, Jr., Little Rock, for appellee, Standard Abstract & Title Co. Inc.
The appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Mason, brought this action for damages arising from the appellees' asserted failure to complete a contract by which they were to construct a dwelling house for the Masons. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendants, on the ground that the plaintiffs' proof of damages was insufficient to enable the jury to fix the pecuniary loss. For reversal it is contended that the proof was sufficient.
The trial judge was right. The measure of damages in a case of this kind is the difference between the unpaid portion of the contract price and the reasonable cost of completing the construction. Sternberg Dredging Co. v. Dawson, 171 Ark. 604, 285 S.W. 32 (1926); Northern Constr. Co. v. Johnson, 132 Ark. 528, 201 S.W. 510 (1918). At the trial these appellants offered no evidence whatever that would have enabled the jury to fix the amount of damages in dollars and cents.
Even so, the appellants, citing Crow v. Russell, 226 Ark. 121, 289 S.W.2d 195 (1956), argue that if the loss is shown with certainty the damages need not be proved with exactness. That case is distinguishable, however, not only because it involved a loss of future profits but also because the opinion recites a number of dollars-and-cents figures that were considered by the jury. The case at hand is similar to Tolbert v. Samuels, 229 Ark. 676, 317 S.W.2d 715 (1958). There we upheld the chancellor's refusal to award damages, because That same difficulty would have confronted the jury in the present case. Moreover, an experienced builder would presumably have been able to estimate the cost of completing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winkle v. Grand Nat. Bank
...presented to the trial court that would enable it to fix damages in dollars and cents, the court cannot award damages. Mason v. Russenberger, 260 Ark. 561, 542 S.W.2d 745; Tolbert v. Samuels, 229 Ark. 676, 317 S.W.2d 715. Appellants failed to establish any proof upon which a judgment for ac......
-
MindGames v. Western Publishing Co.
...1996); 995 F. Supp. 949 (E.D Wis. 1998). Although the victim of a breach of contract is entitled to nominal damages, Mason v. Russenberger, 542 S.W.2d 745 (Ark. 1976); Movitz v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago, 148 F.3d 760, 765 (7th Cir. 1998); E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts sec. 12.8, p. 784 (......
-
In re Slefco
...reasonable proportion to actual damages shown. Winkle v. Grand National Bank, 267 Ark. 123, 601 S.W.2d 559 (1980); Mason v. Russenberger, 260 Ark. 561, 542 S.W.2d 745 (1976); and Tolbert v. Samuels, 229 Ark. 676, 317 S.W.2d 715 (1958). Evidence of actual damages sustained by the debtor was ......
-
McCorkle v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., CA
...and cents, the court cannot award damages. See Winkle v. Grand National Bank, 267 Ark. 123, 601 S.W.2d 559 (1980); Mason v. Russenberger, 260 Ark. 561, 542 S.W.2d 745 (1976). In the instant case, Mr. McCorkle testified extensively regarding the destruction of personal property in the loss. ......