Oak Island Hotel Co. v. Oak Island Grove Co.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1896
• Citation: 165 Mass. 260,42 N.E. 1124
• Parties: OAK ISLAND HOTEL CO. v. OAK ISLAND GROVE CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

165 Mass. 260

42 N.E. 1124

OAK ISLAND HOTEL CO. v. OAK ISLAND GROVE CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 26, 1896

COUNSEL

Smith & Ludden, for plaintiff.

John D. Long and J.O. Teele, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES, J.

This is an action for the breach of covenants in a lease made by the defendant to the plaintiff. The case is here on two exceptions to the exclusion of evidence. The first concerned the alleged interference by the defendant with the granting of a grove and victualer's license to the plaintiff. There seems to have been a misunderstanding between the court and the plaintiff's counsel as to certain questions, the court taking them as an inquiry what a conversation meant, and excluding that. The questions as reported seem to have been intended simply to call for the words spoken; but, as the court added that the plaintiff might ask for anything that was said, and the plaintiff thereupon put such questions as it saw fit, and seemingly got in what it was seeking to introduce, it suffered no wrong.

The other exception concerns the exclusion of some expert testimony as to the amount of damage suffered. The short answer to this exception is that the jury found a verdict for the defendant. Even when evidence is admitted which might influence the finding of the jury on the cause of action, if it is confined by the instructions of the judge to damages, and if the jury find for the defendant, commonly, a new trial will not be granted. Sullivan v. Railway Co., 162 Mass. 536, 39 N.E. 185. A fortiori, the same is true when the evidence is excluded. Cunningham v. Parks, 97 Mass. 172, 175. It is argued that, practically, the effect was to exclude all proof of damages, and thus to necessitate a verdict for the defendant. But, if a breach of contract had been proved, the plaintiff would have been entitled at least to nominal damages; and, on the facts in evidence, the jury might have found substantial damages without the aid of testimony directed specifically to the amount. Smith v. Brown, 164 Mass. 584, 586, 42 N.E. 101; Pierce v. Steamship Co., 153 Mass. 87, 91, 26 N.E. 415.

Exceptions overruled.