Wood v. State

• Decision Date: 15 July 1886
• Citation: 5 A. 476,66 Md. 61
• Parties: WOOD AND OTHERS v. STATE, USE OF WHITE AND OTHERS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

5 A. 476

66 Md. 61

WOOD AND OTHERS v. STATE, USE OF WHITE AND OTHERS.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

July 15, 1886

Appeal from circuit court, Alleghany county.

Wm. M. Price and Ferd. Williams, for appellants.

G S. Hamill, Thos. I. Peddicord, Fred. A. Thayer, and R. T. Semmes, for appellees.

RITCHIE J.

This is a suit on an injunction bond; and this appeal relates to the damages allowed for enjoining the removal of plaintiff's saw-mill from the defendant's land, in Garrett county for a period of six weeks. The exceptions taken by defendants are to the rulings of the court upon the evidence and prayers fixing the standard and the items and method of computing the damages.

It was shown in the testimony that, at the time this injunction was issued, the plaintiffs, with the knowledge of defendants, or some of them were about to remove the saw-mill to Bedford county, Pennsylvania, where they had bought timber on a royalty of seven dollars per thousand feet, and had orders for the sale of the lumber to be made on the tract. The removal of the mill to the Bedford county land was delayed by the injunction, as stated, for six weeks, when it was dissolved. The claim of the plaintiffs was that they were entitled to recover, as damages, the amount of profits they might have made if they had prosecuted their lumber business in Bedford county during that period. As the mode of ascertaining what those profits would have amounted to, they offered proof of certain items of expense in the making of lumber from the Bedford tract, and the price obtained at the time when they actually were at work, after the expiration of the six weeks. The items thus specified were, per thousand feet, as follows: For royalty, $7; for cutting trees, $1; for hauling trees to mill, $2.50; for sawing, $1.75; for hauling to railroad, $1; for loading on cars, 25 cents,--in all $13.50 as the cost of manufacture; and, as the market price at place of sale, $18 per thousand feet. To the allowance of such profits, and to this method of ascertaining the damage caused by detaining the mill, and the fixing the cost of manufacturing and the price of the lumber by figures prevailing at a time other than the six weeks when the mill was idle and the injunction in force, the defendants excepted. And their contention is that the true rule of damages under the circumstances of this case was the rental value or hire of a mill of the capacity defendants' mill was shown to be.

It seems to us that to enumerate certain leading items of expense, and thus assign to the saw-mill alone the whole difference between their aggregate and the price obtained, as a profit exclusively attributable to the saw-mill, was incorrect. Profits are contributed to by all, and not one only, of the various elements which combine to produce them. All the different kinds of work and labor which enter into the manufacture of an article form the source and basis of profits; in this case, the cutting down and hauling done, etc., as well as the sawing by the mill. The saw-mill alone cannot be deemed the only factor in producing the net result; and we think the mode of computation pursued was calculated to mislead the jury. Moreover, the possible breakage and loss of time incident to practical operations, the cost of freightage to the place of market, the expenses of general supervision, the natural wear and tear, and the use of capital, do not appear as matters of deduction in striking the balance,--all items of consideration in carrying on lumber business. Nor is it shown that the cost of labor and price of lumber-- articles of fluctuation--were the same during the six weeks the injunction was pending, when the profits are claimed, as they were subsequently. The periods should have been connected in this respect.

But these defects only tend to strengthen the conviction that the profits claimed are too uncertain, speculative, and contingent in their nature to furnish the true rule of damages in this case, which, in our opinion, should have been the rental value or hire of the saw-mill, or one of similar capacity, for the period of six weeks. The defendants' question, in their fifth exception, "What is the fair hire for such a machine as this is?" should have been allowed. The rental value or hire of a saw-mill, with a known capacity, is not difficult of ascertainment. Equivalent words to ...