from the record title to the land, and that J. M. and R. W. Higginbotham have paid the plaintiff the sum of $425 in reimbursement.
A common-law bond is a written contract, and in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties thereunder courts are guided by the same rules of law that govern the interpretation of written contracts generally. 9 O. J. 31-129.
A study of the terms of the bond in question, in the light of the circumstances under which it is shown to have been executed, leaves no room to doubt that the sum named therein was intended as a penalty to secure performance of the obligations of the obligors, as set out in the clause of defeasance, rather than as a stipulation of the amount of damages, which the parties estimated and agreed would be sustained by the *533obligee in case of nonperformance of those obligations.
Such being tbe case, tbe damages recoverable are to be ascertained and measured by tbe actual loss sustained by tbe obligee as tbe natural and proximate result of tbe failure of tbe obligors to perform tbeir obligations named in tbe defeasance clause of tbe bond. As constituting sucb a loss, tbe plaintiff alleges tbe loss of tbe benefits wbicb would bave accrued to ber from tbe consummation of tbe sale of a part of tbe land (tbe mineral rights) to Prescott in tbe year 1919, more than four years after tbe contract was made. Whether or not tbe plaintiff's petition presents a cause of action against J. M. and R. W. Higginbotham depends upon whether or not tbeir breach of tbe contract renders them liable for tbe damages alleged to bave resulted to tbe plaintiff on account of tbe loss of the sale to Prescott.
Under tbe terms of tbe contract, tbe Higginbothams were obligated to perfect tbe record title to said lands to tbe extent of rendering it merchantable and to furnish abstracts disclosing a merchantable title. In tbe usual course of things, a breach by tbe obligor, of a contract of this nature, does not result in producing tbe loss of a sale of tbe land affected. Therefore tbe loss of a sale of tbe land, as a probable result of a breach of sucb a contract, is not to be regarded as being in contemplation of tbe obligor when be makes tbe contract, unless there exist special circumstances at the time of tbe execution of tbe contract, of which tbe obligor has notice, from wbicb it ought reasonably be foreseen that such a loss would naturally and probably result from a breach of bis obligation. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Belcher, 89 Tex. 429, 35 S. W. 6; Pac. Exp. Co. v. Darnell, 62 Tex. 641.
No special circumstances or conditions, of tbe nature described, are shown to bave existed at tbe time the Higginbothams entered into tbe contract to remedy the defects of title. A resale of the