Case Name: James M'Daniel, Adm'r. W. Richards, ads. John D. Terrill
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1818-11
Citations: 1 Nott & McC. 343
Docket Number: 
Parties: James M’Daniel, Adm’r. W. Richards, ads. John D. Terrill.
Judges: CoLCOCK, Ciieves and Johnson, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
James M’Daniel, Adm’r. W. Richards, ads. John D. Terrill.
The law always presumes damages from tlie breach of contract; but where the plaintiff expeots to recover for special damage, he must state it in his declaration, or he will be precluded from giving evidence of such special damage,
This was an action of covenant on a deed, in which the parties were reciprocally bound : the defendant’s intestate to advance four thousand dollars to the plaintiff, and bear his expenses; and the plaintiff to lay out the money so advanced, in the purchase of lands in the State of Georgia, which lands, when acquired, were to be equally divided between the parties. The breach assigned was, that the defendant had not paid the money according to the stipulations of his covenant.
The cause was tried, October Term, 1818, before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Pendleton.
The jury found a verdict of sixty dollars for the plaintiff.
This was a motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground :
*That the plaintiff had not set forth in his declaration any special damage which he had sustained by reason of the non-performauce of the covenant on the part of the defendant.
Former case, S. C. ante, 20.
Clinton v. Mercer, 1 Murphey’s No. Car. Cas. 119. Rising v. Grainger, 1 Mass. T. R. 47. R.
11 Rich. 287.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Nott, J.
Damages are either general or special. General damages are such as the law presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained, of. Special damages are such as the party actually sustained, and are not implied by law. 1 Chitty on Pleadings, 385. Such damages as may be presumed necessarily to result from the breach of contract, need not be' stated in the declaration. The law always presumes some damages to result from a breach of contract, and therefore special damages need not be alleged. But where the plaintiff expects to recover special damages, he must state them specially and circumstantially in order to apprise the defendant of the facts intended to be proven, or he will not be permitted to give evidence of such damages on the trial. 1 Chitty, 332. The general rule is, that it is sufficient to assign the breach in the words of the contract. Ib. 326. An omission to set forth any special damage may deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of testimony, to which he would otherwise have been entitled ; but it is not a good ground in arrest of judgment, except in cases where the special injury is the gist of the action ; as in an action of slander for words not in themselves actionable. In such cases, unless the special damage is set forth, there appears no cause of action on the face of the declaration. The motion in this case must be refused.
M'Duffie and Bowie, for the motion. Farrar and Shanlclin, contra.
CoLCOCK, Ciieves and Johnson, JJ., concurred.