Paine v. Sherwood
Decision Date | 11 January 1875 |
Citation | 21 Minn. 225 |
Parties | J. M. PAINE & another <I>vs.</I> GEORGE W. SHERWOOD & another. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
E. C. Palmer, for appellants.
Henry J. Horn, for respondents.
The plaintiffs sue to recover the value of lumber and other articles sold and delivered, and of work and labor performed by them for the defendants. After the decision of the former appeal in the action, (19 Minn. 315,) the answer was amended. In the amended answer the defendants set forth the following contract:
The answer alleges that all the lumber charged in the statement of the first cause of action set forth in the complaint, amounting to 47,455 feet, and two items comprising 952 feet, were furnished under this contract, and not otherwise, and proceeds as follows: "And said defendants further allege that they forthwith required of said plaintiffs the delivery of the whole timber for said three bridges, amounting to 80,000 feet and more, as said plaintiffs then well knew, within five weeks from said December 3, 1870, and made such demand and requirement at divers times between said day and the first day of January, 1871; but that said plaintiffs did not deliver all said timber, required as aforesaid, within the time provided in said contract, but neglected and refused to do so, and have never delivered the same, or fulfilled said contract on their part, to the damage of said defendants as hereinafter stated, and are not entitled to maintain their said action to recover the price or value of said timber, or any part thereof, referred to herein.
The answer then alleges the loss of time of defendants' men employed in framing the bridges, owing to the fact that the 39,000 feet actually furnished were delivered in small quantities, and with much delay, and the damages resulting to the defendants from this loss of time, (198 days,) amounting to $545.87, are alleged as a counter-claim. As the defendants were permitted to prove this item of damage, and the jury were instructed to allow it, if proved, no question arises on this portion of the case.
The answer proceeds:
The answer concludes with an averment that, by reason of the premises, the defendants have sustained loss and damage in the sum of $1,977.89, for which they ask judgment.
The reply admits the making of the contract, denies that any of the lumber mentioned in the complaint was furnished under the contract, except the item of "Lumber used in three bridges, 39,175 feet, $548.45," denies in detail most of the allegations in the answer, and alleges new matter not necessary to be stated here.
The court below ruled that the defendants, by pleading a counter-claim for damages arising from the plaintiffs' breach of the contract, thereby admitted the plaintiffs' right to recover for the timber furnished under the contract, although the contract was entire, and no excuse was shown by the plaintiffs for their failure to perform in full. A like ruling was made upon the former trial, and was sustained by this court, (19 Minn. 315,) on the authority of Mason v. Heyward, 3 Minn. 182, and other cases. There are grave objections to this rule, which would prevent us from adopting it, if the question were res integra; but after all, it is only a rule of pleading, and its practical working is not such as to occasion injustice. The benefits received by the defendant from the performance can always be given in evidence to reduce the damages claimed for the breach, and it is only in cases where the defendant's damages are less than the value of the goods furnished, or work done, under the contract, that the plaintiff can recover for part-performance of an entire contract which he has, without excuse, neglected or refused to perform in full. And the defendant can always avoid this result, and secure all his rights, by pleading the non-performance, merely as a defence to the plaintiff's action, reserving his own claim for damages to be asserted in an independent action against the plaintiff. For these reasons, we do not feel called upon to overrule the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Prairie Bank–Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equip., LLC, No. A09–0607.
...the amount that will place the nonbreaching party in the same position as if the contract had been fully performed. E.g., Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225, 232 (1875). But when courts resolve attorney fees claims, they follow rules of equity. For example, in a case involving attorney fees ar......
-
Beaulieu v. Great N. Ry. Co.
...decisions in this state. That this court had adopted the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale, supra, in contract cases (for example, see Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225); and the larger measure of recovery in tort cases is clear beyond controversy. See for example, Christianson v. Chicago, etc., Ry......
-
Beaulieu v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
...decisions in this state. That this court had adopted the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale, supra, in contract cases (for example, see Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225); and the larger measure of recovery in tort cases is clear beyond controversy. See for example, Christianson v. Chicago, St. P., ......
-
City of Winona v. Jackson
... ... Cowley v. Davidson, 13 Minn. 86 (92); Stees v ... Leonard, 20 Minn. 448 (494); Paine v. Sherwood, ... 21 Minn. 225; Nash v. City of St. Paul, 23 Minn ... 132; Anderson v. May, 50 Minn. 280. The contractors ... were not ... ...