Tuttle v. Hannegan
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $492 75. In this action the complainant alleged that the plaintiffs were co-partners, engaged in selling milk; that- on November 15th, 1866, they purchased of the defendant for the sum of $1,000, one horse and wagon, and the appurtenances and the good will of a milk route in the city of New York, and paid him that sum therefor ; that the defendant agreed with the plaintiffs that he would not, for and during the term of three…
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $492 75. In this action the complainant alleged that the plaintiffs were co-partners, engaged in selling milk; that- on November 15th, 1866, they purchased of the defendant for the sum of $1,000, one horse and wagon, and the appurtenances and the good will of a milk route in the city of New York, and paid him that sum therefor ; that the defendant agreed with the plaintiffs that he would not, for and during the term of three years from November 15th, 1866, in any way or manner serve, supply, or sell, or cause to be served, supplied or sold, by…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.*—Joseph F. Daly, J.
—The proof of damage given by plaintiffs on the trial was admissible; the loss of customers and loss' of daily profits was the direct result of the defendant’s breach of his agreement, that he would not supply milk to the customers on the milk route he had sold to the plaintiffs. The defendant argues that the correct rule of damage would be the difference between the contract price at which the defendant sold the property, and its actual value after the breach. It might well be that it was worth far more than the defendant sold it for; but, if so, the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Watson v. RoodeNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- Hamilton v. LauNebraska Supreme Court · 1888