Byrnes v. Metz

Three questions are raised on this appeal:

1. Are the increased costs of construction recoverable under the injunction bond ?

2. Did respondents violate their duty to mitigate their damages ?

3. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in setting costs and attorneys’ fees ?

Increased construction costs.

The basic rule for computing damages under an injunction bond was first set out by this court in 1846 in Gear v. Shaw:

“. . . The party is entitled to such damages as he may have reasonably sustained by being deprived of the profits of the work he was engaged at when the injunction was served. . .…