Case Name: LEONIDAS HASKELL, Respondent, v. JOHN McHENRY, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1854-10
Citations: 4 Cal. 411
Docket Number: 
Parties: * LEONIDAS HASKELL, Respondent, v. JOHN McHENRY, Appellant.
Judges: Mr. Oh. J. Murray concurred.
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 411–411

Head Matter:
* LEONIDAS HASKELL, Respondent, v. JOHN McHENRY, Appellant.
Contract — Breach of Entibe Contbaot. — Where the contract is entire, a breach of part is a breaeh'of the whole, and discharges the party complaining of it from the performance of any of the conditions on his part, and gives him a complete right of action.
Contract, Measure of Damages. — The rule of damages against a purchaser for not receiving goods according to contract, is the difference between the contract price and the market value, at the time of the breach of the contract.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt
delivered the opinion -of the Court.
Mr. Oh. J. Murray concurred.
The contract declared on was an entirety. The first breach by the defendant was a breach of the whole, and discharged the plaintiff from the performance of any conditions on his part. It gave him a complete right of action.
The rule of damages was properly decided, although the Court committed an error in instructing the jury that it was the difference between the contract price and the proceeds of the sale at auction. The true rule is the difference between the contract price and the market value, at the time of the breach, and so the Court afterwards charged. But the error, if not relieved by the subsequent instruction, has done no injury, as the evidence, without dispute, establishes that the price at the auction sale was the fair market value.
Judgment affirmed.
Cited, 50 Ind. 305; 10 Bank. Reg. 323, i