Court Opinion

ID: 7094214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 12:09:09.778383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:13:11.497056
License: Public Domain

Dillon, Ch. J.
— In concurring, after some hesitation and doubt, in that portion of the opinion relating to the instructions given and refused as to the rule of damages, I desire to add that I do so in view of the state of the record, and to say that I do not understand the opinion as holding that the rule therein stated would necessarily be the true rule under a different state of facts. For instance, *205were tlie plaintiffs notified by the defendants, that, by reason of a bridge over the river, or by reason of their preferring to transfer the grain across the river directly in the cars by running the latter to boats, they would hereafter furnish the plaintiffs with no more grain under the contract, the latter would not then be justified, as I* think, in keeping a force of hands on pay, doing nothing, during the remainder of the contract term, with a view to claim one cent per bushel for each and every bushel of grain that might, during that period, pass over the defendants’ road. In such a case it might be the right, if not the duty, of the plaintiffs to declare as for a total breach of the contract, and recover in one action damages for the whole contract period. And in such a case, and indeed in any case, it would be the duty of the plaintiff’s not to adopt or pursue a course which would make the damages unnecessarily large.
If, without such a notice, there shall be a distinct breach of the contract by the defendant, whether the plaintiffs may bring a distinct action for each car load of grain that they are wrongfully prevented from handling, or whether they can sue but once, and in that suit must claim damages for the entire space of time covered by the contract, is also a question not involved even incidentally in the present appeal, and upon which, as I understand, no opinion of the court is given or is to be inferred.