Case Name: Henry White et al. v. George E. Brockway et al.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1879-01-21
Citations: 40 Mich. 209
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry White et al. v. George E. Brockway et al.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
Henry White et al. v. George E. Brockway et al.
Measure of damages for defects in machinery bought on contract.
The measure of damages for putting up a steam-boiler with such defects as to make it worth less than the contract price, is the difference between its value in its defective condition and its value if completed in compliance with the contract.
Error to St. Clair.
Submitted Jan. 10.
Decided Jan. 21.
Assumpsit upon special and common counts for damages. Defendants bring error. The facts appear.
E. G. Stevenson and O’Brien J. Atkinson for plaintiffs in error.
A. E. Chadwick for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Cooley, J.
The defendants in error brought action in the court below to recover damages for defects in a steam-boiler which plaintiffs in error constructed and put up for them in a vessel under a special contract. By the verdict of a jury they recovered a judgment of one thousand, dollars. Many exceptions were taken on the trial, but the only one requiring attention relates to the rule of damages. The judge instructed the jury that if, by reason of the defects the boiler was worth less than the contract price, then the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover whatever amount the boiler is worth less than the contract price. This was erroneous. He should have instructed them that plaintiffs were entitled to recover the difference in value between the boiler as it was with the defects, and the boiler as it would have been if completed in compliance with the contract. This latter sum might be more than the contract price, or it •might be less, but it was obviously the proper standard by which to measure the damages of plaintiffs, because a boiler so completed was exactly what they were entitled to.
We say nothing concerning any special damages, because no question respecting such damages is before us.
The judgment is reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
The other Justices concurred.