Wood v. Niagara Falls Paper Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1903
• Docket Number: 57.
• Citation: 121 F. 818
• Parties: WOOD et al. v. NIAGARA FALLS PAPER CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

121 F. 818

WOOD et al. v. NIAGARA FALLS PAPER CO.

No. 57.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

February 25, 1903

Henry G. Ward, for plaintiffs in error.

Chas P. Howland, for defendant in error.

Before WALLACE and COXE, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error by the plaintiffs in the court below to review a judgment for the defendant entered upon the verdict of a jury. The action was brought to recover the balance of the purchase price of two turbines, with shafts, bearings and wheels, erected by the plaintiffs on the premises of the defendant pursuant to a contract which, among other things provided that in case the erection of the turbines was not completed by October 1, 1896, the plaintiffs would pay the defendant, as liquidated damages, $100 per day for each day beyond that time both should remain uncompleted, and $50 for each day either one should remain uncompleted. The defense to the action was that one of the turbines was not completed until November 9, 1896, and the other was not until November 13, 1896, whereby the plaintiffs became liable to pay the defendant damages which at the stipulated sum were in excess of the unpaid purchase price.

The defendant, at the time the contract for the turbines was made, was engaged in making additions to its manufacturing plant and installing new machinery, and the turbines were designed to double the power of its mill. Because of the unreadiness of the turbines, the defendant was unable to operate or test its new plant and machinery. It was conceded that one of the wheels was not completed until November 9 and the other until November 13, 1896. By the verdict the defendant was allowed to recover $50 a day for every day each turbine remained uncompleted after the 1st of October.

Error is assigned of the rulings of the trial judge in excluding evidence tending to show that the defendant suffered no appreciable damage because of the delay in the completion of the turbines.

We think that the defendant was entitled to recover the damages fixed by the contract, without making proof of any actual loss sustained by it through the failure of the plaintiffs to complete the turbines and that the plaintiffs could not defeat or reduce the recovery by evidence showing that the defendant sustained no actual loss, and that the trial judge would have been justified in excluding any evidence offered by the plaintiffs to show that the defendant did not sustain any actual...