Bredemeier v. Pacific Supply Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is an action by Fred A. Bredemeier and George Menzel against the Pacific Supply Company, a corporation, for damages for the breach of a contract. The cause was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $2,655. From a resulting judgment, defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is an action by Fred A. Bredemeier and George Menzel against the Pacific Supply Company, a corporation, for damages for the breach of a contract. The cause was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $2,655. From a resulting judgment, defendant appeals. The facts, so far as deemed material to determine the controversy, are as follows: On the 12th day of October, 1910, plaintiffs and defendant entered into a contract, by the terms of which the plaintiffs were to have the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bean
At the close of plaintiffs’ evidence, defendant moved the court for a nonsuit, which was refused, and the defendant assigns such refusal as error. Counsel for defendant also objected and excepted to certain evidence introduced, for the reason that the same tended to show merely speculative, remote, and conjectural damages, and assigns the introduction of such evidence as error.
1. The general rule is that, in order to recover profits in case of a breach of contract, such profits must have been within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the execution of the contract; and, where such…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Wakeman v. Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Blagen v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- Emerson v. Pacific Coast & Norway Packing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Hichhorn, Mack & Co. v. BradleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Mueller v. Bethesda Mineral Spring Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1891
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Hacker Pipe & Supply Co. v. Chapman Valve Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
- Hoffer Oil Corporation v. CarpenterCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1929
- Calkins v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
- Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Hachmeister Lind Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Brown v. Homestake Exploration Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1934
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.