Case Name: TROUTWINE v. HOFF
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-05-06
Citations: 110 N.Y.S. 295
Docket Number: 
Parties: TROUTWINE v. HOFF.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 110
Pages: 295–300

Head Matter:
TROUTWINE v. HOFF.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
May 6, 1908.)
1. Damages—Nominal Damages—Extent Not Shown.
Where defendant agreed to take plaintiff’s note for four months in payment of certain treasury stock, and to renew the note each four months thereafter until the dividends on the stock paid the same, and plaintiff was subsequently compelled to pay a renewal note by a bank in which one of the renewal notes had been discounted, in the absence of a showing as to the value of the stock, plaintiff is entitled to merely nominal damages for breach of the agreement to renew.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Damages, §§ 19-33.]
2. Same—Breach of Contract—Failure to Renew Note.
The damage for failure to perpetually renew a note is the remainder after deducting from the face the present value of a discharge from an obligation to pay in perpetuity the annual interest of 6 per cent on the face of the note.
Kellogg and Chester, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term.
Action by George F. Troutwine against Francis L. Hoff. From a judgment for nominal damages only, plaintiff appeals. Modified and affirmed upon the opinion of the judge at Trial Term.
Following is the opinion of H. T. Kellogg, J., at Trial Term:
In order to induce the plaintiff to purchase treasury stock of the Idaho-Maryland Development Company at the price of $2,500, the defendant, an officer of said company, agreed to take a note of the plaintiff therefor for four months and individually promised to renew the same each four months thereafter until the dividends upon said stock should pay the said sum. It is evident from the written contract itself that the plaintiff was to pay all interest charges upon said note, for the renewals were to continue, not until the note and the interest was fully paid by dividends, but until the sum of $2,500, which was the principal sum of the note, had through such dividends been fully paid. That the plaintiff was to pay all interest charges upon said note and its renewals is proven beyond controversy by the conduct of the plaintiff, who at the time of the giving of the original note and the many renewals thereof at all times prepaid the interest charges without objection or protest, thus giving to the agreement a practical interpretation which cannot now be departed from. The original note and its renewals were payable to the order of the defendant. They were discounted by him at a banking house. After many renewals the discounting bank at last refused to renew again, sued the note then possessed it, and the plaintiff was compelled to pay the same. It is evident that the parties to this action made a valid agreement based upon consideration and that the defendant has broken that agreement. It is not clear, however, that the plaintiff has sustained any damage. He has retained in his hands the stock sold him through the defendant, and will retain-the same, although he obtains judgment in this action; for that stock never belonged to the defendant, and therefore a judgment in favor of the plaintiff will not in itself transfer title in the same. It does not appear that the stock in question is without value. For all that appears, that stock may be worth much more than the sum of $2,500. For this reason, therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the plaintiff has been injured at all by the defendant’s breach, or how great, if any, that injury may be. Again, it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff should pay interest upon the note and all its renewals. If no dividends were ever paid by the company, then under the agreement the plaintiff would be obliged to pay in quarterly installments perpetually the interest charges on the principal sum thereby promised. The damage of the plaintiff is plainly the remainder after deducting from the sum of $2,-500, the present value of a discharge from an obligation to pay in perpetuity the annual interest of 6 per cent, on such sum. What is it worth to be relieved of the payment of the interest on that sum of money for an infinite number of years? Evidently the sum of $2,500.
For all these reasons, judgment shall follow for the plaintiff for nominal damages only.
Argued before SMITH, P. J,. and CHESTER, KELLOGG, COCHRANE, and SEWELL, JJ.
Wood & Maider (F. C. Wood, of counsel), for appellant.
Horton D. Wright, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Judgment modified so as to award plaintiff $17.57 damages, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of H. T. Kellogg, J" at Trial Term. KELLOGG, J., dissents in opinion in which CHESTER, J., concurs.