Fell v. Newberry
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Emmet; Adams, J. Assumpsit by Sylvester O. Fell against Jay L. New-berry for work and labor, and for damages in being prevented from performing a sawing contract. Plaintiff brings error from a judgment in his favor for less than the amount claimed.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
The facts are sufficiently stated in Ihe opinion of Mr. Justice Grant. The question involved *543is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover as damages the amount of such profit as he might have made by per forming the contract if performance had not been prevented by the defendant.
The general and simplest rule of damages is that the injured party is entitled to compensation for the loss sustained. In actions on contract this rule is so far qualified as to limit the recovery to such damages as can be said to have been in the contemplation of the parties. A further limitation to the general…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Allis v. McLeanMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Burrell v. New York & Saginaw Solar Salt Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1865
- Leonard v. BeaudryMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Atkinson v. MorseMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- John Hutchinson Manufacturing Co. v. PinchMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Cecil Corley Motor Co., Inc. v. General Motors Corp.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1974
- Spencer Medicine Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Howard Supply Co. v. WellsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1910
- Industrial Works v. MitchellMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Rich v. Daily Creamery Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1942
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.