Peck-Hammond Co. v. Heifner

• Decision Date: 28 February 1903
• Citation: 33 So. 807,136 Ala. 473
• Parties: PECK-HAMMOND CO. v. HEIFNER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

33 So. 807

136 Ala. 473

PECK-HAMMOND CO. v. HEIFNER.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 28, 1903

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.

Action by the Peck-Hammond Company against F. P. Heifner. From a judgment for plaintiff for less than claimed, it appeals. Reversed.

Ray Rushton, for appellant.

McCLELLAN C.J.

The Peck-Hammond Company of the one part, and F. P. Heifner of the other, entered into an unconditional contract, by the terms of which the former was to furnish and put in place a warm-air heating apparatus in a house which the latter was under contract to build for a third party, and the latter was to pay therefor the sum of $530. This contract, without cause therefor on the part of the Peck-Hammond Company, was repudiated by Heifner, and its performance by the former was thereby prevented, though the company was at all times ready able, and willing to perform it. This seems to us a clear case for recovery by the company from Heifner of the value to it of the contract, and not merely the amount of expense incurred by it in the way of performing its part of the contract. The company was entitled to recover, in other words, the profits that would have accrued to it from a full performance of the contract. 1 Sedg. on Dam. § 192; 8 Am. &amp Eng. Ency. Law, p. 632 et seq.; Ramey v. Holcombe, 21 Ala. 567; George v. Cahawba & Marion Railroad Co., 8 Ala. 234; Danforth & Armstrong v. Tenn. &amp Coosa Railroad Co., 93 Ala. 614, 11 So. 60; Bonifay v. Hassell, 100 Ala. 269, 14 So. 46; Worthington &amp Co. v. Gwin, 119 Ala. 44, 24 So. 739, 43 L. R. A. 382. The evidence adduced in the city court, where the case was tried without a jury, showed that the Peck-Hammond people had expended $25 toward the performance of the contract before Heifner refused to allow them to proceed with its execution; that the full performance of the contract would have entailed upon them the further expense of $283.68. Deducting the aggregate of these sums, viz., $308.68, from the contract price, viz., $530, and the balance, viz., $221.32, is the profits as upon full performance which the plaintiff was entitled to recover, with interest. Of course, the defendant had no concern with the expense incurred by plaintiff in securing the contract--the $79.50 commissions paid to its agent, Hoover. The judgment of the city court awarding only $25 damages must be reversed, and a judgment will be here rendered for plaintiff for...