Court Opinion

ID: 8121721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 14:58:08.342181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:02.013858
License: Public Domain

MoKennan, G. J.
The opinion of the late district judge, who decided this cause, so concisely and accurately states the law by which it must be governed, that I do not propose to add anything to it.
The ordinary measure of damages between vendor and vendee, for breach of a contract for the sale of goods, is the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time and place of delivery, for the reason that this is the actual loss sustained by the vendee. But here the respondent was in possession of the libellant’s goods, which were wrongfully withheld from him, whereby he was disabled from performing a contract for the sale of them, and the sale of them was defeated. Of this sale the respondent was duly notified, when a delivery of the goods was demanded, and by its refusal to deliver them took the risk of a renunciation of the purchase by the complainant’s vendee. Whatever sum the complainant would have realized by this contract in excess of the market price of the goods at the time of their delivery, when he had the power to dispose of them, is clearly the amount of his actual loss which was caused by the respondent’s act. The goods were withhold from the complainant until the fifth of March, 1878, and for the difference between their market price at that time and the price for which they had been sold *552to Keene, be is entitled to a decree. This difference amounts to $1,961.57, for which sum, with interest from March 5, 1878, and costs, a decree will be entered in favor of the libel-lant.