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
as Josephs Brothers, appellants.
Syllabus: Nrst-Appellants gave an order to
respondents for certain suits of clothing to be
made according to stipulated sizes, ma terial and
Styles and to be delivered within a specified
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
ter1al, 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. 80
Second-The evidence upon the question of
damages was not sufficient to- support the YER
dict.
Order reversed New trial. Lewis. T. ,
The Alger-Fowler company, appellant, vs.
John L. Tracy, doing business as 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 executorv con.
tract before performance Is due expressly re-
nounces the contract and gives notice that he
will not perform 1t, his adversary, If he so elects
may treat the remuneration as a breach of the
contract and at can bring an action for
damages.
Third-A party desiring 50 to treat the renun-
citation of an executory contract as a breach
must within reasonable time elect soto do.
Judgment affirmed. Start G, J.
Christian Dessecker. appellant, vs. Phoenix Mill
company, respondent. r., .,5 ........ r. '.rE
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, no duty thereafter
rests upon the master to inspect the same from
time to time fer the purpose of ascertaining
whether from It's ordinary use it has become out
Of repair; at least, such duty rests upon
the master as. to a servant who is thoroly ia
ndliar with the use of such an instrumentality.
Order affirmed. u. Brown, J.
Daniel R. Moves ct al, co-partners3 as Moves
Brothers & Cutler, appellants, vs.. Butler
Brothers, corporation, respondent; Daniel R.
Moves ct al co-partners Moves Brothers g.
Cutler respondents, vs.. Butler Brothers a
corporation, appellant. g.. I'D.
Syllabus: AS between a contractor for the
| construction Of a building according to certain
plans and specifications and his subcontractor
who furnishes part of the material reference
may be made to the specifications without adopt
Ing them as a whole and in the absence Of an
! express agreement to that effect, it will not be
inferred that the parties contemplated that all
the provisions of the specifications should have
| application. Rule applied in this case and held
that reference to the plans and specifications was
for no other purpose than to determine the
amount and the sizes of the glass to be fur
nished by the ,subcontractor, and appellants were
not entitled to judgment, Notwithstanding the
verdict Pa Ike. ~.
The order granting a new trial for insufficient
cy of the evidence is sustained, it not being
manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict
Order affirmed. Lewis J.
F. H. Peterson, doing business as f. H. Peter
son & Co.. appellant, VS.. John T. Hutchinson
respondent g..g -9s-sgs II
Per Curiam-Appeal dismissed.
81. G. Farmer, respondent VS.. Columbus Buggy
company appellant.
Per Curiam--Order affirmed.