Mitchell v. Clarke
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to recover damages for the failure of the defendant to pay to one Jackson, a creditor of the plaintiff, certain money which had been intrusted to him for such purpose by the plaintiff, and which he had agreed to pay. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
In Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, it was laid down that the damages which one party to a contract ought to receive in respect to a breach of it by another are such as arise “naturally ”—that is, in the usual course of things —from the breach itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been contemplated by the parties when making the contract as the probable result of the breach. The doctrine of that case has since been followed, and is said by Lord Campbell to accord with the Code Napoleon, with Pothier, and “ with all the authorities.” (Smeed v. Foord, 1 El. & E. 612.) When…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Lewis Jorge Construction Management, Inc. v. Pomona Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Hunt Bros. Co. v. San Lorenzo Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Myers v. StephensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Fraser v. BentelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.