Spencer v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 31 October 1893
• Citation: Spencer v. Hamilton, 113 N. C. 49, 18 S. E. 167 (N.C. 1893)
• Parties: SPENCER v. HAMILTON.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

18 S.E. 167

113 N.C. 49

SPENCER v. HAMILTON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 31, 1893

Appeal from superior court, Hyde county; Bynum, Judge.

Action by Samuel G. Spencer against George W. Hamilton for rent. The defendant interposed a counterclaim for damages caused by plaintiff's failure to clean out certain ditches, as he had covenanted to do in the lease. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendant appeals. Reversed.

The issues submitted to the jury, and their answers, are as follows: "(1) What is the value of the crop of corn cotton, and potatoes raised on the land leased by defendant from plaintiff for the year 1889? Answer. $125. (2) What damage, if any, has plaintiff sustained by the wrongful detention of the property described in the complaint? A $100, with interest. (3) Did plaintiff perform his contract in regard to the ditches and canal? A. No. (4) What damage has defendant sustained by reason of plaintiff's failure to perform his contract? A. $25."

The court, among other things, charged the jury as follows "If the jury should find that the plaintiff contracted with defendant to put the ditches and canal in order, or to furnish money to have such work done, and that he failed to do so, then the measure of damages would be what it would have cost defendant to have done the work, and would not be the difference in value of the crop raised upon the land as it was, and the crop which would have been raised had such ditches and canal been put in order." To this charge the defendant excepted.

For breach of a lessor's covenant in a lease to clean out certain ditches on the leased premises, failure to do which caused the land to be flooded, and prevented the lessee from making a full crop, the lessee's measure of damages is not merely what it would have cost him to put the ditches in good order, but he is entitled to recover for the consequent decrease in the net yield of his land.

Chas. F. Warren, for appellant.

W. B. Rodman, for appellee.

CLARK J.

"Where one violates his contract, he is liable only for such damages as are caused by the breach, or such as, being incidental to the act of omission or commission, as a natural consequence thereof, may reasonably be presumed to have been in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. This rule of law is well settled, but the difficulty arises in making its application." Pearson, J., in Ashe v. De Rossett, 50 N.C. 299. There was evidence that defendant leased the land for $100, and as a part of the contract of leasing the lessor was to have certain ditches cleaned out and by his failure to do so the land was flooded, and the crop lessened. Here it was in contemplation of both parties that the cleaning out of the ditches was essential to the making a full crop, and that the failure to do so would lessen the production. The question, therefore, what effect the failure to clean out the ditches and canal had upon the crop, and to what extent it was...