Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ducoin v. Morris

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 11, 1954No. 39,494Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWedell, J.

I agree the lessor, appellee, breached the exclusive covenant. However, in view of appellants’ theory of their action as unequivocally disclosed by both the petition and the trial record, I cannot agree appellants are entitled to recover for loss on fixtures and equipment.

Appellants, of course, could not recover for loss of anticipated profits. That was no part of the damages claimed. The damages they sought to recover were (1) loss they sustained in the operation of the business and (2) loss on fixtures. The loss on fixtures constituted not direct but consequential damages. Manifestly, loss…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Myers v. Shell Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1941
  2. Hogan v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1938
  3. McCracken v. StewartSupreme Court of Kansas · 1950
  4. Sherman Center Town Co. v. LeonardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
  5. States v. DurkinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API