Case: Douglass & Mandeville v. McAllister
Abbreviation: Douglass v. McAllister
Decision Date: 1806-02-17
Docket Number: 
Citation: 3 Cranch 298
Volume: 7
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Douglass & Mandeville v. McAllister.
Judges: 
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
Douglass & Mandeville v. McAllister.
Charge of the court. — Damages.
The court, upon a jury trial, is bound to give an opinion, if required, upon any point relevant to the issue.
Semble. In estimating damages for the breach of a contract to deliver flour, the jury are to ascertain the value of the flour on the day when the cause of action arose.
McAllister v. Douglas, 1 Cr. C. C. 241, affirmed.
Error to the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, in an action of assumpsit, for not delivering flour according to contract.
The transcript of the record contained a bill of exceptions, which stated,, that the plaintiff offered in evidence the following writing, addressed by the-plaintiff below, to the defendants, the present plaintiffs in error, viz :
“ Will you receive my flour on the following terms, viz., whenever a load of flour is delivered, should any cooperage be wanting, you charge it to the-wagoner, and deduct it from the carriage. You will credit me with the-highest market price, at the time of delivery, and note it on the receipt; and any balance of flour that may remain in your hands, unpaid as it is delivered, you will pay me, when I send for it, or deliver as much flour as is coming to me, at my option. It is understood, that in case the flour is delivered, storage is to be allowed or charged at six pence per barrel.
“Agreed. Given under our hands, Alexandria, April 2'7th L803.
(Signed) Douglass & Mandeville.
John McAllister.”
*The defendants had received from the plaintiff 408 barrels of r*29£ flour, under that contract, and the plaintiff made his election, and dem anded the flour of the defendants, on the 14thof October 1803. No final answer was made by the defendants to the demand, until the 19th of November ; but the intermediate time was given to them to consider of the demand and make propositions of compromise. No compromise being made, and the flour not being delivered, this action was commenced, on the 21st of the same month. It did not appear, that any answer was given to the plaintiff’s demand.
At the trial, the plaintiff offered evidence to the jury of the price of flour on the 19th and 21st days of November, the price being the same on both days, and contended to the jury only for that price. Whereupon, the counsel for the defendants prayed the court to instruct the jury, that in estimating the compensation for the non-delivery of the said flour, they should be governed by the price of that article on the day the plaintiff signified his option, and made his demand under the contract, to have the flour specifically delivered to him; and further prayed the court, in case the aforesaid instruction was not given, to direct the jury by what rule, in point of time, they are to take the price of flour in the estimation of the damages, sustained by the plaintiff, by reason of the breach of the contract. But the court being divided in opinion upon those points (two judges only being present), did not give the instructions as prayed, wherefore, the defendants excepted, &c.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for $2159.48, upon which judgment was rendered accordingly, and the defendants brought their writ of error. The question before this court was, whether the court below ought to have given the instructions prayed for by the plaintiffs in error.
This question was submitted, without argument, by Swann, for the plaintiffs in error, and E. J. Lee, for the defendant.
*February 17th, 1806.

Opinion:
Marshall, Ch. J.
The error complained of is, that the circuit court did not give an opinion on a point proposed. The court was certainly bound to give an opinion, if z-equired, upon any point relevant to the issue.
It appears, from the facts stated, that the cause of action did not accrue until the 19th of November, when the negotiation for a compromise was broken off. A tender of the flour at any time after the 14th, and before the 19th, would have been a compliance with the contract. As the plaintiff claimed no more than the pzice of the flour on the 19th, and as the z-efusal of the court to instruct the jury did not alter the verdict, which was for the price on that day, and was for the same amount as if the opinion had been given, there is no error of which the defendants could complain.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.