Case Name: STUMPF et al. v. MERZ
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-03-21
Citations: 92 N.Y.S. 789
Docket Number: 
Parties: STUMPF et al. v. MERZ.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 92
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
STUMPF et al. v. MERZ.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 21, 1905.)
C/ONTBACT FOB ADVERTISING—ACTION FOB BeeACH.
Defendant, who contracted for plaintiffs to publish an advertisement once a week in their paper by notifying them at the end of the first quarter to discontinue the advertisement, committed a breach of the contract, warranting plaintiffs, without doing more, to treat the contract as at an end, and to sue for loss of profits on the part they were not permitted to perform.
Blanchard, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
Action by Anthony Stumpf and others against Carrie Merz. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.
H. Gerald Chapin, for appellant.
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 of 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. Law, 152.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to plaintiffs to abide the event.
SCOTT, J., concurs