Case ID: cal_55/html/0468-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 6,967.
    Department No. 1.]
    POULSON v. HOSKINS.
    Statement on Motion por New Trial—Extension op Time—Breach op Contract—Damages.
    Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Tenth District Court, County of Colusa. Keysek, J.
    The complaint alleged that the defendant agreed to repair the plaintiff’s soda-water apparatus for the sum of $200; that the work was unskillfully done, and that the plaintiff suffered damage thereby in the sum of $3,000, as follows: to wit, that plaintiff lost his entire summer’s work; expended four or five hundred dollars for materials, which were spoilt; employed two men at $65 and $75 per month, from May to August, 1879, and had no business for them by reason of defendant’s breach of contract; that the soda water manufactured by him was of inferior quality, and spoiled in the hands of his customers, thereby utterly ruining the reputation of plaintiff as a soda-water manufacturer ; that plaintiff’s credit was materially injured, and his business ruined; and that, if defendant had performed his contract, plaintiff would have realized a net profit from his business of $2,000. The answer was a general denial, and the verdict and judgment was for $1,100 and costs.
    
      The statement on motion for new trial was stricken out, on motion of respondent’s attorneys, because not filed in time.
    
      Marshall Craig, and Grant & Jackson Hatch, for Appellant.
    The damages alleged in the complaint are speculative, consequential, and remote. (Selden v. Cushman, 20 Cal. 57.)
    
      Hart & Hart, for Respondent.
    The complaint in this case is for breach of contract. There was no demurrer. The evidence is stricken out, and there is no record of the instructions.
   The Court:

Judgment and order affirmed.