Young v. Cureton

• Decision Date: 17 June 1889
• Citation: 87 Ala. 727,6 So. 352
• Parties: YOUNG ET AL. v. CURETON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

6 So. 352

87 Ala. 727

YOUNG ET AL. v. CURETON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 17, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Etowah county; JOHN B. TALLY, Judge.

George W. Cureton sued A. Young & Co. to recover for goods sold. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

W L. Whitlock and L. L. Dean, for appellants.

Amos E. Goodhue, for appellee.

CLOPTON J.

In this action, which was brought by appellee to recover the price of three barrels of whisky, the defendants seek by special plea to recoup damages suffered by the alleged breach of an executory contract. The plea avers that in November, 1887 plaintiff and defendants entered into a contract, by which the former agreed to deliver to the latter ten barrels of corn whisky, at an agreed price, by the 25th day of December thereafter, and that the barrels in controversy were delivered in pursuance of such agreement, but that plaintiff failed to deliver the other seven barrels. All the assignments of error go to the rulings of the court on plaintiff's objections to certain questions propounded on behalf of defendants to each of themselves while being examined as witnesses. It does not seem to admit of doubt under the uniform decisions of this court, that the objections were properly sustained.

As witnesses the defendants were asked what damages they sustained by the failure of plaintiff to perform the contract. With some exceptions, witnesses will not be allowed to state their opinion, though it may be founded on facts, or the inferences or conclusions which they may have drawn from them. This case does not fall within any of the exceptions to the general rule. We assume that no respectable authority can be found which maintains the admissibility of the opinion of a witness as to the quantum of damages caused by the breach of an executory contract to deliver goods. This would be to put the witness in the place of the jury, whose province it is to draw the inferences and conclusions from the facts and circumstances in evidence. Railroad Co. v. Varner, 19 Ala. 185; Chandler v. Bush, 84 Ala. 102, 4 South. Rep. 207.

The other questions objected to were directed to the loss of profits. The general rule is that the measure of damages, in cases like the present, is the difference between the price agreed to be paid and the market value of the goods at the place of delivery. If goods are purchased for the purpose of fulfilling an existing contract of resale, and this is known to the seller, the profits that would have...