Bush v. Canfield
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an action on the case, brought by the plaintiffs as the only surviving partners of the late firm of JVor-⅞* Bush.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case, brought by the plaintiffs as the only surviving partners of the late firm of JVor-⅞* Bush. The declaration stated, that Norton Sp Bush, on the 20th of February 1812, entered into a contract in writing with the defendant, in these words : “ It is agreed by and between the parties here subscribing, that Judson Canfield agrees to deliver to the order of Norton <$• Bush, at New-Orleans, 2000 barrels superfine wheat flour, to be delivered in good shipping order, on or before the first day of May next: the flour to be regularly inspected at New-Orleans, at the time…
1Opinion of the Court
Swivt, Ch. J.
Where a man-contracts to deliver any ar - ticle besides money, and fails to do it, the rule of damages is the value of the article at the time and place of delivery, and the interest for the delay. Though the promissec may have suffered a great disappointment and loss, by the failure to fulfil the contract; yet these remote consequences cannot, in such cases, betaken into consideration by courts, in estimating the damages. It is always supposed, that the party could , have supplied himself with the article at that price; and iff he intends to provide against the inconvenience…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Glennborough Homeowners Ass'n v. USPSCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
- L. Albert & Son v. Armstrong Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
- Wells v. AbernethySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1824
- Willis v. DudleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.