#### Albert Partridge and another *vs.*Joseph Blanchard.

June 26, 1876.

Complaint for Breach of. Contract to Sell. — A complaint alleging a contract for the sale and delivery of personal property, a breach of the contract, and that plaintiff has sustained damages to a specified amount by reason of the breach, is sufficient, although the special damages alleged are not recoverable.

This action was commenced in a justice’s court, where plaintiffs had judgment. The defendant having appealed on questions of law alone, the district court for Fillmore county, *Page-,*J., presiding, reversed the judgment of the justice, on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, and the plaintiffs appealed. The complaint is as follows :

[Title of cause.] “The above-named plaintiffs say that they were at the times hereinafter mentioned, and now are, partners doing business in the firm name of Partridge & Piddle, and that at the times hereinafter mentioned they were engaged in the butcher business at the village of Spring Yalle}r, and had many customers dependent upon them for their daily meat. Plaintiffs, on or about the 24th day of June, A. D. 1875, being desirous to eugage mutton for the 4th day of July ensuing, at the request of the defendant, *70bought and purchased of the defendant fourteen head of sheep, to be delivered by the defendant, at his residence, to the plaintiffs, whenever the said plaintiffs should call for them and want them during the summer, for the price of three dollars per head, to be paid for on delivery, and the defendant then and there sold to plaintiffs the said fourteen head of sheep, for the price of three dollars per head, for the said fourteen sheep, and agreed to deliver the same to plaintiffs when called for. In pursuance of said agreement and sale of said sheep tlie defendant delivered to the plaintiffs throe of said sheep, and the plaintiffs paid the defendant nine dollars for the same, according to the terms of said sale and agreement. That, on the 1st day of July, A. D. 1875, plaintiffs called on the defendant, at his residence aforesaid, and demanded the balance of said sheep so purchased of" defendant as aforesaid, and the defendant then and there refused to deliver the balance of said sheep so purchased of the defendant by the plaintiffs aforesaid, and still neglects and refuses to deliver the same, or any part thereof, although the plaintiffs were ready and willing to receive the said sheep and pay for the same according to the terms of said sale and agreement; and the plaintiffs were put to a great deal of trouble, time, and expense in hunting up other sheep to supply their customers for the 4th of July next ensuing, to wit, two days’ time, with horse and buggy. That the plaintiffs bought said sheep of the defendant especially for their customers, and they do not know where they can buy such a lot of sheep as the defendant sold to plaintiffs as aforesaid. The plaintiffs say that they have sustained damages to the amount of $25 by reason of the premises aforesaid, and the defendant not performing the said agreement with the plaintiffs. Wherefore, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant for the’sum of $25, and their costs and disbursements.

*J. Q. <& J. D. Farmer,*for appellants.

*Dryden Smith,*for respondent.

GtILEillan, C. J.

The complaint sets out a contract *71for the sale and delivery of the sheep, and a breach of the contract. In such a case the general allegation of damage is sufficient to admit proof of, and a recovery for, general damages, and it is not ground of demurrer that the allegation of special damage is insufficient.

Judgment reversed.