Louis v. Steamboat Buckeye
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
This was an action submitted to be tried by the Court, and the facts were found to be as follows: “The defendant contracted to deliver 20 barrels of whisky for the plaintiff, at a place called Napoleon, in Arkansas.
Read the full summary
This was an action submitted to be tried by the Court, and the facts were found to be as follows: “The defendant contracted to deliver 20 barrels of whisky for the plaintiff, at a place called Napoleon, in Arkansas. The vessel, instead of making the delivery when she reached Napoleon, carried the goods on to New Orleans, and did not deliver them until her return, some two weeks after the proper time of delivery, when they were delivered and received by the consignee or agent of the plaintiff. A question arose as to the proper measure of damages, and as to what damages the plaintiff could…
1Opinion of the CourtGholson, J.
The general principle requires, that the proximate and natural consequences of the breach of contract in such a case as the present, should form the subject of the damages to be recovered. 18 Barb. 371 and cases cited: 2 Greenl. Ev. 256. Difficulty has occurred in applying this rule to particular cases; but in the present case, the loss of an unusually high price for the article, at its ultimate point of destination, does not seem to me to be either a proximate or natural consequence of the breach of contract.
*152Had there been an entire failure to deliver the whisky, the measure of damages seems…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wells v. AbernethySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1824
- Smethurst v. WoolstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- McGregor & Co. v. KilgoreOhio Supreme Court · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- Davis v. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton R. R.Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1855