Case ID: ny-st-rep_36/html/0124-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Van Brunt, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fanny Bean, App’lt, v. George W. Carleton et al., Resp’ts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed December 31, 1890.)
    
    Contact—Damages.
    In an action to recover for breach of a contract for publication of a book by reason of a failure to publish as many copies as agreed. Meld, that plaintiff was fully indemnified by a verdict for the amount advanced by her on the contract, and that she could not recover for loss of the manuscript, as the evidence as to the damage caused to it was too speculative.
    Appeal 'by plaintiff from judgment entered in her favor upon verdict of a jury.
    
      A. B. Oruikshank, for app’lt; I. D. Warren, for resp’ts. ,
   Van Brunt, P. J.

The plaintiff claims by her appeal that the verdict was too small, and that she was entitled to damages for the loss of her manuscript. .

We think, however, where the-plaintiff was allowed to recover back the total amount paid under the contract, the evidence as to the damage to the manuscript resulting from the failure to print 2,000 copies, 1,000 only having been issued, was too speculative to justify any recovery thereunder, and, therefore, the learned judge ruled correctly in limiting the amount of damages to the moneys paid by the plaintiff under the contract in question.

We think, therefore, that the judgment so far as it is appealed from by the plaintiff should be affirmed upon her appeal.

Bartlett, J., concurs.