The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-07-06
Supreme Court

A. W. Schloss and Murray Schloss, co-partners !
as Schloss Brothers, respondents, VS.. Sigmund |
Y. Josephs and Louis Y. Josephs co-partners |
Josephs Brothers, appellants
Syllabus Ftrst-Appellants gave an order to
for certain suits of clothing to be !
made according to stipulated sizes, material and
time. Held The contract was not within the
the statute of frauds and the measure Of dam
ages was the difference between the contract
price and the cost Of manufacture, including ma
terial labor, etc, for the entire order, and in
addition thereto the difference between the cost
of manufacturing that part Of the order which
was filed and shipped, less the value of the
goods so manufactured and rendered at the date
of their rejection by the vendee
Second-The evidence upon the question OF
damages was not sufficient to support the YER
dict.
Order reversed. New trial. Lewis, J. J
The Alger-Fowler company, appellant VS..
John L. Tracy, doing business J. l.. Tracy
& Co., respondent.
Syllabus: First-The general rule as to dam
ages for breach of a contract for the sale Of
goods is the difference between the contract
price and the market price at the time and
place when and where they ought to have been
| delivered.
Second-Where one party to an executory con-
| tract before performance is due expressly re-
nounces the contract and gives notice that he
viii not perform it. his adversary, If he so elects
may treat the remuneration breach Of the
| contract and at once can bring an action for
damages.
Third-A party desiring 80 to treat the renun-
citation of an executory contract a breach
must within Il reasonable time elect soto do.
| Judgment affirmed. Start, G. J.
Christian Dessecker appellant, VS.. Phoenix Mill
| company, respondent. - ~ .-.'.. Is.
| Syllabus: Where an ordinary ladder furnished
by the master to his servant with which to per
form his duties is sound and In good condition
| for use when SO furnished duty thereafter
rests upon the master to inspect the same from
time to time fer the purpose of ascertaining
of repair; at least, such duty rests upon
the master as to servant who is thorOly ia
n,ilar with the use Of such an fundamentally
Is Order affirmed. II. Brown, j.
Daniel R. Moves ct al, co-partners as Noye:
! Brothers & Cutler, appellants, vs.. Butte
Brothers, a corporation respondent; Daniel R
Moves ct al co-partners as Noyes Brothers
Cutler respondents Butler Brothers,
corporation, appellant. .# .5
Syllabus: AS between a contractor for tn
construction of a building according to certain
plans and specifcatio and his subcontracto
who furnishes part Of the material, referenc
may be made to the specifications without adopt
ing then. whole and in the absence Of a
express agreement to that effect, it will not b
inferred that the parties contemplated that al
the provisions Of the specifications should hav
application. Rule applied in this case and hel
that reference to the plans and specifications wa
for no other purpose than to determine tn
amount and the sizes of the glass to be ful
T nished by the subcontractor, and appellants wer
not entitled to judgment, notwithstanding th
verdict. ..sl-r. .-.se :.,... s.4s.
The order granting a new trial for insuffcie1
: | cy of the evidence is sustained, it not bein
: manifestly and papably in favor Of the verdic
. Order affirmed. lewis, j.
n F. H. Peterson doing business as F. H. Pete