Imperial Coal Co. v. Port Royal Coal Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL BY DEPENDANT EBOM THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE WESTMOBELAND COUNTY. No. 84 October Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 245 February Term 1888, C. P. On December 21,1887, the Imperial Coal Company brought assumpsit against the Port Royal Coal Company. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit.
Read the full summary
APPEAL BY DEPENDANT EBOM THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE WESTMOBELAND COUNTY. No. 84 October Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 245 February Term 1888, C. P. On December 21,1887, the Imperial Coal Company brought assumpsit against the Port Royal Coal Company. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit. At the trial on December 12, 1889, testimony was introduced by the plaintiff to the effect that early in 1886 the plaintiff company was the owner of a plant of coke ovens not in active operation and many of them out of repair, and the defendant company was operating a coal mine; that in February or…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee, Curiam:
We have examined this voluminous record with some care, and find it free from error. The only matter calling for comment is raised by the eighteenth assignment, and refers to the question of damages. While it is undoubtedly true that mere speculative profits cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract, a careful examination of the assignment shows that the profits in question were not within this rule. The jury have found the contract to be as plaintiff alleged ; that it was an entire contract; that the defendant was to furnish plaintiff with enough coal to keep its…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Wilson v. WernwagSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- James McNeil & Brother Co. v. Crucible Steel Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Smith v. KaufmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Puritan Coke Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- In re Duquesne Incandescent Light Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1910
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.