Warner v. McLay
| Decision Date | 12 March 1918 |
| Citation | 92 Conn. 427,103 A. 113 |
| Parties | WARNER v. McLAY. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of New Haven; John R. Booth, Judge.
Action by Hubert E. Warner, Jr., against James McLay for breach of contract. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Error, and new trial ordered.
The theory of the plaintiff as shown by his complaint and prayer for relief is that he is entitled to recover damages for expenditures and loss of profits occasioned by the breack of a written building contract. It is apparently here conceded that there was an unjust abrogation of this contract, by the defendant An important question presented by the ap peal is as to the measure of damages. Upon this branch of the case the jury were told that:
The jury were also told that:
"Of course, you will be guided by the evidence submitted before you, and there is no conflict of evidence, because the defendant has offered none, so you will then be obliged to take the evidence as submitted by the plaintiff."
Arthur B. O'Keefe and John Cunliffe, Jr., both of New Haven, for appellant. Carl A. Mears, of New Haven, for appellee.
RORABACK, J. (after stating the facts as above). It is a familiar principle of law that it is the duty of the trial court to give the jury such instructions as are correct in law, adapted to the issues, and sufficient for its guidance in the determination of the issues upon the evidence and upon the ultimate facts as they may reasonably be found to be established by the evidence.
In the present case the plaintiff had the right to recover such sum in damages as he would have realized in profits if the contract had been fully performed. To ascertain this it was necessary to find the cost and expense of the work and materials necessary to complete the contract. This sum, deducted from the contract price, would have given a balance which would be the profit which would have accrued to the plaintiff out of the contract if it had been fulfilled. This the plaintiff had a right to receive in addition to his expenditures for work and labor supplied towards the completion of the contract. Fox v. Harding, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 523; United States v. Behan, 110 U. S. 338, 4 Sup. Ct. 81, 28 L. Ed. 168.
The substance of the instruction to the jury upon this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Novella v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
...77, 255 A.2d 848, 849. '(I)t must be correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury. Warner v. McLay, 92 Conn. 427, 429, 103 A. 113; Bogudski v. Backes, 83 Conn. 208, 215, 76 A. 540. If it meets this test, it will ordinarily be sustained although it may no......
-
Bridgeport L.A.W. Corp. v. Levy
...1061; Shailer v. Bullock, 78 Conn. 65, 68, 61 A. 65, 112 Am.St.Rep. 87; McGarry v. Healey, 78 Conn. 365, 367, 62 A. 671; Warner v. McLay, 92 Conn. 427, 430, 103 A. 113. the absence, however, of anything incorrect in law, the reading of requests in this manner, though improper, is not in its......
-
Paiva v. Vanech Heights Const. Co.
...damages. See Michaud v. Gagne, 155 Conn. 406, 412, 232 A.2d 326; Castaldo v. D'Eramo, 140 Conn. 88, 94, 98 A.2d 664; Warner v. McLay, 92 Conn. 427, 429, 103 A. 113. Therefore, the errors assigned with reference to the court's instructions to the jury on the issue of damages are without meri......
-
Laukaitis v. Klikna
...Water Commissioners v. Robbins, 74 A. 938, 82 Conn. 623, 636; Proctor v. Bauby, 96 A. 935, 90 Conn. 252, 254; Warner v. McLay, 103 A. 113, 92 Conn. 427, 429; Miles v. Strong, 36 A. 55, 68 Conn. 274, An examination of the entire charge as it appears in the record shows that the only referenc......