Richter v. Meyers
| Decision Date | 08 June 1892 |
| Docket Number | 491 |
| Parties | RICHTER v. MEYERS |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Marion Superior Court.
Judgment affirmed.
B Davis and W. H. Martz, for appellant.
J. A Pritchard and H. T. Tincher, for appellee.
This action was brought by Meyers against Richter to recover damages for breach of contract. The complaint alleges that the defendant contracted with the State to construct a new building in connection with the Deaf and Dumb Institution, and he entered into a contract with the plaintiff by the terms of which the latter agreed and undertook to make the necessary excavations for such building for the sum of six hundred dollars; that plaintiff procured the necessary implements and assistance to do such work, and was ready to undertake the execution thereof according to the terms of the contract, but the defendant, without sufficient cause, abandoned said contract, and refused to permit plaintiff to execute such work or any part thereof; that "by reason of the defendant's wilful abandonment of his said contract with plaintiff, so done without any good or sufficient cause whatever, he, this plaintiff, has been damaged in the sum of three hundred dollars, the difference between the actual cost of the said work and this plaintiff's contract price with said defendant." Wherefore judgment is prayed.
A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and the cause, being put at issue, was tried by a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for three hundred dollars. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict, and the defendant appeals.
The first question for decision relates to the ruling of the court upon the demurrer to the complaint. The only objection urged against the complaint is that it does not allege the damages with sufficient particularity. There is no merit in the ground of objection. If it were necessary to allege damages specially, and if the complaint were deficient in that respect, it shows such a breach of contract as would entitle the appellee to nominal damages, and that is sufficient to resist a demurrer.
But the damages claimed in the complaint are not special, but are the direct and necessary result of the breach of contract counted upon, and do not need to be specially alleged.
For the breach of a contract like the one under consideration the general damages are measured by subtracting the actual cost of the undertaking from the contract price. Dunn v. Johnson, 33 Ind. 54; Fairfield v. Jeffreys, 68 Ind. 578.
It was said by the court in Hadley v. Prather, 64 Ind. 137: "It is the rule, that, in cases of executory contracts, like the one under discussion, such damages as naturally result from the breach of the contract are presumed to have accrued to the injured party, and may be recovered under a general allegation of damages in the complaint, and that the measure of damages in such cases should be the difference between the contract price of the work to be done and the reasonable cost of the work at the usual and ordinary prices."
The demurrer was correctly overruled.
It is next contended that the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial