The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-12-13

Wall u. So 6os; $. c. Is Law. ed,
527, 52s)
Under the sixth objection 1t is urged
that the damages claimed are too re-
mote. speculative and uncertain 10
sustain a cause of action. While it is
true that profits which are q mere
matter Of speculation or 1.-The expected
fruits Of an unrealized speculation
can not be made the basis of recov-
cry in suits to recover damages for
breach of contract. it is we'll settled
that profits which are reasonably GER
tain may be. But it is equally well
settled that the profits which would
have been realized had the contract
been performed, and which have been
prevented by its breach, are included
in the damages 10 be recovered in
every case where such profits are not
open to the objection of uncertainty or
of remoteness, or where from the ex-
press or implied terms of the contract
itself. or the special circumstances
under which it was made, it may be
reasonably presumed that they We're
within the intent and mutual under
standing of both parties at the time
ii was entered into" Profits are not
open to the objection OF uncertainty
and certainly not to that Of remote
ness, where they would have been the
direct result of carrying on the con-
tract to a completion and were OBJ
viously within the intent and mutual
| understanding of both parties at the
| time it was entered into.
The seventh objection is that there
| is a misjoinder of counts or causes OF
| action in said proposed amended COM
/ plant. The proposed amended COM
| plant contains three counts or causes
| of action, in the first and second oil
which it is sought to recover damages
| for breach of the same contract, and
| in the third count it is sought to re-
cover damages for the wrongful acts
| of the defendants in making certain
false representations and promises
concerning and directly connected with
| the contract alleged In said third
count, being the same. contract set Out
in the first and second counts. In tbs
absence of some statutory inhibition
| under our system, / can see no reason
| why any number of counts might not
| be united in the same complaint OF
| petition, whether founded upon con
tract or upon tort, if they all arise out
of the same transaction or out of the
same contract, and each affects all OF
the parties to the action. The eighth
and last, objection is that the contract
sued upon is void as against public
policy. In the language of Mr.. Justice
Harrison, of the Supreme Court Of
| California, in the case of Smith V. 5
| F. & n. P. Ry. Co., lis Cal, 584. al
page 6Oo Public policy is a term o.
vague and uncertain meaning, which
it pertains to the lawmaking power
to define and courts are apt to en-
croach upon the domain of that branch
of the government If they characterize
a transaction as invalid because it is
contrary to public policy, unless the
transaction contravenes some positive
! statute or some well-established rule
| of law" In the case at bar it can MOI
| be contended that the contract sued
upon as alleged in the proposed
amended complaint was designed tc
work a fraud either upon the corpor-
alton or upon the other stockholders.