Baldwin v. Bennett
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District, This was an action brought upon an express contract, to pay the plaintiff a certain fee for legal services, with a condition that the property in question, the Tuolumne Hydraulic Association Ditch, should be secured to the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District, This was an action brought upon an express contract, to pay the plaintiff a certain fee for legal services, with a condition that the property in question, the Tuolumne Hydraulic Association Ditch, should be secured to the defendant. Services were rendered by the plaintiff under the contract, and pending the litigation, the defendant settled the claim, and conveyed by deed his interest in the property, without the advice or knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the sum agreed upon by the parties, and brought suit for it.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Heydeneeldt
Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.
The general rule as to measure of damages in an action for breach of contract, is correctly given by appellant’s counsel. It “is not the whole price agreed to be paid, but the actual loss sustained, which will consist of the value of the services rendered and the damage sustained by the refusal to allow performance of the rest of the contract.”
To this rule there are, however, some exceptions. Where, from the nature of the contract, as in this case, no possible mode is left of ascertaining the damage, we will have presented the anomalous case of a wrong without a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hunt v. TestSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
3Cited by34 opinions
- Fracasse v. BrentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance v. KinslerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Denio v. City of Huntington BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Kersey v. GartonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Webb v. TresconyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.