, 1869-04-19

must he total failure ), one party IT. therefore,
The failure Of ;plainttHs 70 manufacture n good
and workIu8uhke manner w1s not Of such char
meter a. to seriously nuect the quantity o. lumber
sawed the price It brought, or TO impair the renu
taiion of nla!uua sn ~ e1andonment aon o. she
sufficient cause the platnttns were entitled to re-
cover The profits they might have realized out OF
the contract for the entire period Of tmE the BIZ
SIS being the difference between the cost q nanu-
featuring lumber md thc contract price; the vnue
to plaintiffs under tue contract and the value of
lath picket and Mill culls- The general rule Of
alHaEe ie that the party injured is entitled to n
az his 'ass sastaiaed and thc juFy i not Il hcr1
10 deduct from la estimate any psont that plaintiffs
have or may make through the Use of thell capital
u stocking the mlll themselves, and selling IN
their OWE account, ami defendants arr not lta'Ils
for any losses sustained II any weEe) by plaintiffs
IN the prosecution OF such business nor may the
Il Inc mill and machinery, md natnrai .de,criora.
tlon BY use, ought TO be considered md made part
Of the EXPENSES Of the Manufacture:
The contract rroys ssea for the extenR!on Of the
plalntf1s dock into the deoP water ID front Of the
mill No time being specified In which the dock
Tas 70 be extended the cgal construction Of me
contract Is that to be done within reason.
nbc time, and to warrant breach Of tue CONTRACT
for this cause 1t Is the dutt Of defendants 10 show
default would not alone justify the iecLslon Of the
contract
TN the raH Of the defendants the INSTRUCTIONS
lnat thc tieicnisnts sought, hy means OF the
contract, to secure good, nsrcnantanie lnnoer toS
The GhesG s5ke aud the Rsnt 5Sasn sec 10
either Of these objects defeated the intent
y .he contract H. thsFciors tlS !aEy Gc;!cy;a
1861, tne plaintiffs saved the lumber 90 ba1lg that
pros ~ great, fedaSe Ss IN, A.. II o.
+
i aecndsn.s Il they % eeesed to asanon tt aaa gave
| notice to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff 8 were bound
n @anke saa msnne neeordins tic ssssna1a Of
Chicago lumber market at tho time, aud although
slight and trivial failures would not Justify az
continued failure to saw the lumber IN e9ol and
woEkmanllIc manner, resulting In q loss Q! nroat
the 1nsn 'As tne
jury believed taas up TO sne iosa day
Of September, 1851 the 1alntlns repeatedly sawe.l
diminish Sn Tie rronts On the sale Of 1ne lumber.
then defendants mere iusuned In giving notice u
they wcTc not In detault} 10 terminate the con-
Sosught or trivial dcfault Of the plant!ra either
! IN saving or In the execution OF other parts Of
Toq anthSFzs the sssnae
compliance with ths conditions Of the
contract, to. the prejudice OF the defend
sale sale Of The lumber; ihen that woull amount y
such totla failure on the part Of thc
| plaintiffs SO as to justify a termination
| uf the contract 80, il the jury believed
from the evidence, that on the 10th day ofSertcm.
ber, 1861, the defendants were not IN default, and
thai, previous to tlAt siay, there Was total failure
tas before stated, on The part Of the plaintiffs tG
comply With the condtton, to supply good and
{ wotk1nanllke lnnber, and then defendants elected
TO terminate the contract and 80 notified plaintiffs
then there could lie no recovery.
| In considering whether the lumber was manu'
featured in good and xoTkulanliEe manner, ths
Jury should consider the condition OF that In The
| yard as well as that which WAS sold, and Judge O
| 10th by the standard Of the Chicago
| market when, II the Jury believed that the luua
bcE received by defendant, by reason Of hal lliaau
Inferior qualities, aud that there waa consequent
loss Of prot, and that notice was given Of an cleo
tion to terminate the contract then the reclslol
was justled.
! superior Court.
J. Rutshauser v. 4. F. Ruschlck. Judgment fc
so2i.sG.
Jacob Schleswohl y. erich Busch. Judgment 10
:l4o.
/ NEW sCTrA
Stephen ". Rawson =. Louis Hcnrotn. Assump
SIT. Damages, sl,000. .....-....
| Charles 4. Hrcgnry '. Thomas nelahaitc. In
junction to. restraint the removal Of house, No
is3 uAlstel street
1 Rccnfttcfss Court.
Matilda English v. George English Decreo O
divorce on the ground Of adultery. The partte
we're married In Chicago, on the 81 day OF June
| 1854 and thes livcd together about year. TEi
| evidence was conclusive against defendant.
| ERW SUIT. ....
Terrence keeEan and Jeremiah Schode1d Y