Case Name: Anthony Stumpf et al., Appellants, v. Carrie Merz, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-03
Citations: 46 Misc. 610
Docket Number: 
Parties: Anthony Stumpf et al., Appellants, v. Carrie Merz, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 610–612

Head Matter:
Anthony Stumpf et al., Appellants, v. Carrie Merz, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
March, 1905.)
Contract — Advertisement in newspaper — Damages for breach.
Where the insertion of defendant’s advertisement in plaintiffs' newspaper, under a contract for one year, is discontinued at the end of the first quarter on notice from defendant, plaintiffs are entitled at once to sue for part performance and for loss of profits on the part which they were not permitted to perform because of defendant’s breach of the contract.
Blanchard, J, dissented.
Appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in the Municipal Court of the city of ¡New York, second district, borough of The Bronx.
H. Gerald Chapin, for appellants.
Charles Tein, for respondent.

Opinion:
O'Gorman, J.
The defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiffs to pay a stipulated sum, payable in quarterly payments, for the insertion.of an advertisement in the plaintiffs' newspaper, for the period óf one year. At the expiration of the first quarter, the defendant notified the plaintiffs not to continue the advertisement. This notice was complied with, and plaintiffs now sue to recover damages for defendant's breach of the contract. On the trial proof was excluded as to the expense, if any, which the plaintiffs would incur in the continued publication of the advertisement for the remainder of the period, and the plaintiffs were allowed only the balance due for the period during which the advertisement actually appeared. This was error requiring the reversal of the judgment. The defendant committed a breach of her contract when she ordered, without cause, the termination of the advertisement The plaintiffs were then warranted in treating the defendant's act as putting an end to the contract for all purposes of performance, and suing for the part performed and for loss of profits on the part which the plaintiffs were not permitted to perform in consequence of the defendant's repudiation of her obligation. 7 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 152.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to plaintiffs to abide the event.
Scott, J., concurs.