Court Opinion

ID: 9810813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:00:31.90711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:15.144960
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
dissenting: I cannot concur in the opinion of the Court that the “plaintiff’s evidence does not tend to prove a contract.” It is not for us to say whether the evidence proves or does not prove a contract, as that is the exclusive province of the jury. A11 that we can say is that there is no- evidence, or nothing beyond a mere scintilla, tending to prove a contract. Wittkowsky v. Wasson, 71 N. C., 451; Spruill v. Insurance Co., 120 N. C., 141, and cases therein cited. In going even that far, we must assume the evidence offered in behalf of the plaintiff to be true, and must construe it in the light most favorable to him, because, as this Court has said in Springs v. Schenck, 99 N. C., 551, 555, “The jury might have taken that view of it. if it had been submitted to them.” Avery v. Sexton, 35 N. C., 247; Hathaway v. Hinton, 46 N. C., 243; State v. Allen, 48 N. C., 257, 268; Abernathy v. Stowe, 92 N. C., 213; Gibbs v. Lyon, 95 N. C., 146; Hodges v. Railroad, 120 N. C., 555; Collins v. Swanson, 121 N. C., 67; Cable v. Railroad, 122 N. C., 892.
Taking, then, the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it seems to me that there is unquestionably more than a- scintilla of evidence lending to prove a contract, the terms of which were substan*289tially as follows: The defendant induced the plaintiff to build a barn upon bis premises and agreed, in consideration of a right to its exclusive use, to furnish part of the money necessary for its erection. As a further consideration, the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff for taking care of the stock kept in said barn. .In pursuance of this agreement, the plaintiff began to build the barn, and continued until the defendant notified him of its refusal to abide by the contract. In its partial erection and before such notification, the plaintiff had expended $65 for lumber, $60 for brick, $15 for labor, and $10 for lime, aggregating the sum of $150, no part of which was paid by the defendant. For the labor and the lime (necessarily a total loss) and the depreciation in the value of the lumber and brick by their partial use, the plaintiff demands the sum of $75. This did not include any speculative or prospective profits. It did'not even amount to the bare outlay, but included only the actual loss in cash after allowing a reasonable sum for the value of the material that could be re-used.
We should remember that speculative damages are denied, not because there is no injury (injuria) of which the plaintiff can complain, but because the loss or damage {damnum) resulting from such injury is incapable .of definite estimation. In the present case, there is no ’ difficulty in estimating the damage asked by the plaintiff for the breach of the contract by which the defendant induced him to alter his condition. Subtract the value of the remaining material from the amount already expended, and you have the actual damages by a mere arithmetical calculation.
If a party were to induce a lawyer or a doctor to visit a distant city under the promise of professional employ-*290meat and were then to refuse his services. I think the iujured part3r would be entitled to recover his actual damages. The lawyer could not demand the speculative profits of a contingent fee; but why could he not recover his actual expenses incurred at the request of the defendant? It is true that the plaintiff does not allege that he was unable to complete the barn; but neither is there any evidence that he was able to complete it, or had any use for it if completed. Even if able to do so, no one would care to put money into a building which would be neither useful nor profitable, and which would necessarily deteriorate. I think the judgment should be affirmed.