Case Name: Bush and another against Canfield
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1818-06
Citations: 2 Conn. 485
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bush and another against Canfield.
Judges: Edmond, Smith, Beainabd and Petees, Js. were of the same opinion.
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 485–494

Head Matter:
Bush and another against Canfield.
THIS was an action on the case, brought by the plaintiffs as the only surviving partners of the late firm of JVor-⅞* Bush. The declaration stated, that Norton Sp Bush, on the 20th of February 1812, entered into a contract in writing with the defendant, in these words : “ It is agreed by and between the parties here subscribing, that Judson Canfield agrees to deliver to the order of Norton <$• Bush, at New-Orleans, 2000 barrels superfine wheat flour, to be delivered in good shipping order, on or before the first day of May next: the flour to be regularly inspected at New-Orleans, at the time of delivery $ the price of the superfine to be T dollars per barrel; and in case the whole quantity to be delivered should not pass as superfine, but should pass as good mer-ehantahlejSne flour, the said Canfield will have a right to deliver of the above named 2000, say 1000, barrels, that should be inspected and branded fine, at 50 cents less than the price of superfine, as above. And Norton <$• Bush do agree to receive the flour as here described, at the port of New-Orleans, and to pay therefor 5000 dollars in advance, as is agreed by us, calculating to be in 15 or 20 days from this date; 3000 dollars more to be advanced at four months from the date of the first advance for the said flour; and the balance then remaining due to be paid in six months from the*, date of the delivery of the said flour. It is agreed, that Norton if Bush shall be allowed four months interest on 1000 dollars.
A. and IS entered int® a written contract, whereby B. agreed to deliver to A. at New-Orleans, 2000 barrels of flour, on a certain future day, at the price of 7 dollars per barrel; and A. agreed to receive the flour, and pay 5000 dollars in advance,and the residue by certain instalments, subsequent to the time of delivery. A. accordingly advanced 5000 dollars, but B wholly failed to deliver the flour. At the stipulated time of delivery, the price of flour at JYeio-Qr fea»* was ⅛, so cents- 111 an action brought by J$. against 8. stating’ the contract, and assigning* a breach, it was held, that the rule of damages was the money advanced, with interest.
[Signed.] Judson Canfield.
Norton ⅜ Bush.’*
That in pursuance of this contract-, Norton $• Bush paid over to the defendant, on the 12th of March 1812, the sum of ¡ 5000 dollars $ and were ready, at New-Orleans, on the 1st of May 1812, to receive the flour; and have kept and perform» ed all the covenants on their part; concluding with a general assignment of breach, on the part of the defendant, and a demand of damages.
Hartford,
June, 1818.
The defendant pleaded Mot guilty, and several special pleas, on which issues were taken.
The cause was tried at Litchfield, February term, 1818, before Edmond and Smith, Js.
On the trial, it was proved, that the price of superfine flour at New-Orleans, on the 1st of May, 1812, was 5 dollars, 30 cents, per barrel, and no more. The court, in their charge to the jury, directed them, that if they should find the issues ⅛ favour of the plaintifls, the rule of damages would be, the amount of the sum advanced by the plaintiffs to the defendant, and the interest thereof, from the time it was so advanced. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, with 6,771 dollars dafnages $ and the defendant moved for a new trial, m the ground of a mis-direction.
M. Smith and A, Sterling, in support of the motion,
contended, that the rule of damages, in this case, ought to be — • the value of the flour, at the time, when, and the place, where, the contract was to he performed j and not the money advanced. They insisted, that the contract was still open, having never been rescinded; that this action was founded upon if; that the covenants were independent; and that, as there was an undisputed breach on the part of the defendant, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover such damages, and such only, as the contract would give. The money paid by a party, in part-performance of a contract, can be recovered back, only in case that contract is rescinded ; and then only in an action of indebitatus assumpsit. To establish these positions, they cited Terry §- at. v. Dnntae, 2 H.'Black. 389. 1 H'ms. Saund. 320. n. (4.) Thorpe v. Thorpe, 1 Salk. 171. Havens v. Bush, 2 Johns. Rep. 387. Seers v. Fowler, 2 Johns. Rep. 272. Wilcox v. Ten Eyck, 5 Johns. Rep. 78. Weston v. Downes, Doug, 23. Power v. Wells, Cowp. 818.
Benedict atid Sherman, contra,
remarked, that the covenants must be taken to be either independent or dependent. if they are independent, and the defendant’s inferences are correct, the plaintiffs have not recovered enough, as the val- ge of the flour would exceed the present verdict. But of this the defendant cannot complain, on a motion for a new trial. The verdict has done him no injustice. If the covenants are dependent, the plaintiffs are entitled, and would have been, had they advanced nothing, to recover, at least, nominal damages for the breach. In addition to these, they are also entitled to recover as damages what they have paid. This sum they have lost, by the defendant’s total breach of contract.
The defendant cannot say to the plaintiffs, “ if I had performed my contract, you would have sustained a loss j and therefore, you shall suffer the same loss now.” If the defendant had performed his part of the contract, though the flour were not worth the money advanced, the plaintiffs must have borne the loss. But the defendant cannot, without performance, claim the benefit of a loss, which has never ac erued. He is not to derive the same advantage from a breach of his contract, which he might have had from a per formance of it.

Opinion:
Swivt, Ch. J.
Where a man-contracts to deliver any ar - ticle besides money, and fails to do it, the rule of damages is the value of the article at the time and place of delivery, and the interest for the delay. Though the promissec may have suffered a great disappointment and loss, by the failure to fulfil the contract; yet these remote consequences cannot, in such cases, betaken into consideration by courts, in estimating the damages. It is always supposed, that the party could , have supplied himself with the article at that price; and iff he intends to provide against the inconvenience arising from : such a disappointment, he must make a contract adapted to such objects. In the present case, if the plaintiffs had paid to the defendants the full sum for the two thousand barrels of flour contracted for, then they would have been entitledrto re - cover the value of it at New-Orleans} w here it was to have been delivered. If the price had risen between the time of purchase and delivery, they would have made a profitable speculation; otherwise, if it had fallen. If they had paid nothing, if the flour had advanced in price, they would have been entitled to recover the amount of such advance. If the price had fallen, they would have been entitled to recover nominal damages for the breach of the contract; though they might Iiavebeen subjected to a great loss, if the contract had been fulfilled. This proves, that the actual damages suHerod by a party cannot always be the rule of estimating damages for a breach of contract.
In this case, the plaintiffs advanced apart of the purchase money ; that is, the sum of five thousand dollars ; and no parallel case has been adduced to shew what ought to be the rule of damages for not delivering the flour. I think the one adopted by the court at the circuit, to be just and reasonable. The defendant has violated his contract; and it is not for him, to say, that if he had fulfilled it, the plaintiffs would have sustained a great loss, and that this ought to be deducted from the money advanced. It is not for him to say, that the plaintiffs shall only recover the reduced value of a part of the flour which was to have been delivered, in proportion to the advanced payment. The contract was for the delivery of an entire quantity of flour ; and no rule can be found for an apportionment in such manner. The plaintiffs have been disappointed in their arrangements; the defendant has neglected his du ty ; and retains in his hands five thousand dollars of th® money of the plaintiffs, without consideration. Nothing cat? be more just than that he should refund it; and I am satisfied, that a better rule cannot be adopted in similar cases.