Case Name: C. W. ROBINSON LUMBER CO. v. W. O. & C. G. BURTON et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1910-06-20
Citations: 128 La. 120
Docket Number: No. 18,265
Parties: C. W. ROBINSON LUMBER CO. v. W. O. & C. G. BURTON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 119–129

Head Matter:
(54 South. 582.)
No. 18,265.
C. W. ROBINSON LUMBER CO. v. W. O. & C. G. BURTON et al.
(June 20, 1910.
On the Merits, Oct. 31, 1910.
On Rehearing, March 13, 1911.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 795*) — Motion to Dismiss — Necessity for Briefs.
There are no briefs attached to the transcript of appeal of the main denial, and none-filed in support of the motion to dismiss. It is the duty of parties filing a motion of this character to bring by brief to the knowledge of the court the pleadings in the case, the issues. raised and submitted for decision, the relations of the parties to each other and to the issues, and all other facts necessary for the court to pass intelligently upon the motion. Pressed as this court is with work, it cannot be expected that it should have to examine the record and perform duties which properly fall to counsel.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Gent. Dig. §§ 3142-3145; Dec. Dig. § 795.*)
2. Sales (§ 418*) — Breach oe Contract as to Delivery — Purchase oe Goods Elsewhere — Measure oe Damages.
Where there Was delay in the delivery of lumber sold to be used in the construction of a warehouse, it was the purchaser’s duty to obtain the same kind of lumber elsewhere as expeditiously and cheaply as he reasonably could, if that was practicable; and the vendor would be responsible for the excess of the costs of the lumber so obtained over the price at which he contracted to furnish such material, and also for such reasonable expenses as were incurred in so doing.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sales, Cent.' Dig. §§ 1174-1201; Dec. Dig. § 418.*]
3. Sales (§ 418*) — Breach of Contract as to Delivery — Purchase oe Goods Elsewhere — Measure oe Damages.
Where the contractors made no efforts to obtain the lumber elsewhere, but rushed the construction of the building and used tempo-, rary substitutes for girders and joists, the additional expense of such irregular construction cannot be recovered as damages.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 1174-1201; Dec. Dig. § 418.*]
On Rehearing.
4. Sales (§ 418*) — Breach oe Contract-Measure oe Damages.
Where, as in this case, there is no charge of fraud or bad faith, the general rule is that the damages which may be recovered for the inexccution of a contract are those which are contemplated, or which may reasonably be supposed to have entered into the contemplation of the parties, when the contract was made; and, in the case of a sale of personal property, in the absence of evidence showing that other and special damages were contemplated, those which are presumed to have entered into the contemplation of the parties are represented by the difference between the contract price of the thing sold and the market value at the time and place at which it was to have been delivered, plus the expense incurred, on account of the contract, by the party not in default, and in some cases interest on the-amount awarded. When, therefore, a claim for damages arising from the inexecution of such a contract is pitched upon some other basis, and there is no evidence to support it upon the basis stated, there can be no recovery, nor will the case be remanded, since the trouble lies, not only with the lack of proof, but with the claim itself, as asserted in the petition.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sales, Gent. Dig. §§ 1174-1201; Dec. Dig. § 418.*]
(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
5. Mechanics’ Liens (§ 229*) — Building Contracts — Contractor’s Bond — Liability oe Owner to Materialmen.
Where the owners of a building to be constructed procured from the contractors a bond in favor of the owners alone, and did not secure the furnishers of material thereby, such owners are personally responsible to such materialmen for the amount due them for material furnished under the express provisions of Act 180 of 1894.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Mechanics’ Liens, Dec. Dig. § 229.*]
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Thomas C. W. Ellis, Judge.
Action by the C. W. Robinson Lumber Company against W. O. & C. G. Burton, Albert Maclcie, and the Albert Maekie Grocery Company. From the judgment, defendants Maekie and the Grocery Company appeal; plaintiff answering the appeal, and praying for a personal judgment.
Modified and affirmed.
McCloskey & Benedict, for appellants. T. M. & J. D. Miller, for appellee. P. M. Milner, for defendants W. O. & C. G. Burton.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
NICHOLLS, J.
The plaintiff and appellee moves the court to dismiss the appeal of Albert Maekie and the Albert Maekie Grocery Company on the ground that the appeal bond furnished by appellants is insufficient to support their appeal; the same being in the penalty of only $250, whereas the judgment appealed from was for $2,065.
2. The said appellees (.appellants?) could not validly join in one motion and one bond of appeal. .
There are no briefs attached to the transcript of appeal on the main demand, and appellees have filed none in support of their motion to dismiss. The motion utterly fails to give the court any information as to the action which they have brought, the issues therein involved, or the relations of the different parties in connection with the issues raised and decided.
Pressed as the court is with work, it cannot be expected in order to rule intelligently upon this motion to examine the whole record with which counsel themselves are already familiar. It is their duty to bring on a motion of this character to the knowledge of the court the facts upon which it is called to act. As presently advised, we see no ground for dismissing the appeal.
The motion to dismiss is overruled, and the appeal is maintained.