Legal Opinion

Haskell v. McHenry

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1854PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Heydeneeldt

Mr. Oh. J. Murray concurred.

The contract declared on was an entirety. The first breach by the defendant was a breach of the whole, and discharged the plaintiff from the performance of any conditions on his part. It gave him a complete right of action.

The rule of damages was properly decided, although the Court committed an error in instructing the jury that it was the difference between the contract price and the proceeds of the sale at auction. The true rule is the difference between the contract price and the market value, at the time of the breach, and so the Court afterwards charged. But…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HeckIndiana Supreme Court · 1875

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Alderson v. HoustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Ass'n v. Alchemy Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1986
  3. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HeckIndiana Supreme Court · 1875
  4. De Prosse v. Royal Eagle Distilleries Co.California Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association v. Alchemy Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1986

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