The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1911-03-26

the consideration furnished and the
circumstances that induced the maxi
ing OF the contract may be considered.
8. Where the consideration furnish !.
ed by the obligees is several and not
joint the interests OF the obligees may
prima facie be regarded as several AMI
not joint tf other features Of the CON-
tract do not clearly conflict
o. A covenant TO locate a station
and depot at a stated point on a rail-
road that the interest of an parties
may be best sdbserved," is not neon
sistent with separate interests OF the
obligees. but 1t COMFORTS with the
existence OF distinct rights to main
tain actions for the redress of injuries
resulting proximately from a breach Of
the covenant as the interests Of the
obligees under the contract may ap-
pear.
q The interests and rights Of action
under contract are not Joint where
the obligees may suffer separate and
distinct but unascertained pecuniary
injuries from a breach Of the con-
tract.
8. Where q railroad company has
accepted the benefits Of a contract
granting a right OF way and has en-
e1ecS While q right Sfhase 81 Way epa use Of
.,ts FOR a common carrier railroad
corn1,anv may be secured by conoen-
nattov, proceedings, and the amount 10
- Deid therefor would be the JusS
.ra,,,e NJ the lands taken, yet the
tiles may contract for right o.
~ and depot grounds, and they 81
o,+,+Ied to all the legitimate peneh1'
Of a valid contract
IN Under the statute an agreemen
NAV be made for the location Oh
. -aiiroad depot at a particular pom
the line OF the road, In retur
: for a right OF way.
i II. The damages reco7eraoie roF
Ir,era breach of a contract are not suc
q ara arbitrary or unreasonable, o.
) .,,cb "a are compensatory only =
- Iossos uroxirnately resulting from y
i, hr.ach where the losses are capao
) ~ reasonably certain ascertainme
. 80 nav fairly and reasonably De co
81 -,aarad. either ar raising naturea
: = according to the usual course
a. s,,t,,g. from such breach OF oontrs
s4seIS or such as may reasonably
~ o.a.ed tn have been in the &C
ssr,pIstion of both parties at the u
49, nnaAA the contract as the PR
% W. resuIt of the breach Of It. II !
-is S,,,1 results are contemplated u
~ sbonid be provided for In the q
AZ tract.
IL "a To warrant recovery OF
i. :. .4an4;al damages the losses complain
- - r,,,st have actually and proxiIna
"a .o.,,Ited from the breach or the 9
80 .~sct. thew must be Of such ma
31,a+ thew should reasonably nave
5 "a contemplated by the parties as q ~
abla result of q breach OF the cond
80 tne amount of the losses
- - canabie of reasonably certain
- s,-.ainnent. and not remote, COZ
go tr,rol contingent or speculative.
noe Losses that are the neces
So ..,,,4 ~ a breach of contract or
S. 80 presumed to have been con
nlo+ad ty the parties and may %
eon so-varad under a general allegatle
'leo' aoroeras without being sepaf
Il needed. Losses that naturally
~ ot orarahIv. but not necessarily
neth 49,, he recovered as special Dam
coVe h,,+ they should be specincaliy PIE
vera wbere q railroad station
!, the Moan located on land as a.
lgneo' ana the contract apparently oil
. oon+anplate a depreciation II
- value Q fthe land If the station vi
iecated as agreed. damages Tor
incurred by a depreciation IN the
vi of adjacent land may be reco
W aa such depreciation does not
sar,ly or naturally result proxil
rronn the mere failure 70 ioca
.+stson as agreed, and there .
II ~ he no reliable basis from vi
al determine with any degree 0
IG taintv the amount OF the depre'
1s. Reasonable and Just CON
torv damages may DE recover
Mt, losses actually and proximateiy
Nv the breach of the contract 9
station and depot OF hauiir
more distant point and the IA
the lands near the place wn
station was agreed to be loo
ADVANCE in value, II the cnari
.ha losses is such that tine.
should have contemplated by
sses as a natural and probably