Copyright
J. G. (Jabez Gridley) Sutherland.

A treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 3) online

. (page 13 of 132)
Online LibraryJ. G. (Jabez Gridley) SutherlandA treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 3) → online text (page 13 of 132)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


if he were obliged to go there or else-
where to find employment the ex- '
pense of doing so should be consid-



2560 SUTllEKLAND ON DAMAGES. [§ 693

where the plaintiff, after his discharge, was unable to find
similar employment at the place where he was discharged and
removed his family to another place, the defendant was not
liable for the expense thereof, "for, while the defendant was
entitled to be credited by the plaintiff's net earnings, yet it may
fairly claim that its proper credit shall not be diminished by
any sum which he shall expend for his own purposes or for the
convenience of his family.'' ^^ The use of reasonable diligence
to find other like employment releases an employee from any
duty to remain where his work for the defendant was to be per-
formed.^^

The difference between the value of the broken contract and a
second made with another employer does not necessarily meas-
ure the liability under the former. The jury should consider
the character of the contracts, the situation and condition of
all the parties, the probability or improbability of the employee
being able to carry out his first undertaking, the vicissitudes
and uncertainties attending life, and the likelihood of pro-
motion before the end of the broken contract. Where the case
is tried before the wages under the contract are due the value
of present payment should also be regarded.^*

The great weight of authority is to the effect that the oppor-
tunity to be employed by another will not be presumed, but
must be affirmatively shown by the defendant. While the rule
here is the same as in other cases, that compensation is limited
to the actual injury, and this is deemed to be only the difference
between the wages stipulated to be paid by the defendant and
the amount the plaintiff by diligence can obtain for like service
elsewhere, yet the burden is on the defendant to show the latter
amount; otherwise the damages will be measured by the salary
or wages agreed to be paid,^ nor will an offer of employment by

ered. Tufts v. Plymouth G. M. Co., 23 Gillespie v. Ashford, 125 Iowa

14 Allen 407. 729.

A seaman may recover the expense 24 Kelly P. Co. v. London (Tex.

necessary to return to his home Civ. App.), 125 S. W. 974. See §

port. Schroeder v. California Yu- 124 as to the last proposition,

kon T. Co., 95 Fed. 296. 25 Grant v. New Departure Mfg.

22 Tickler v. Andrae Mfg. Co., 95 Co., 85 Conn. 421 ; Coates v. Alle-

Wis. 352. gheny S. Co., 234 Pa. 199 (the de-



§ 693]



CONTRACTS AND SERVICES.



2561



the defendant at a lower salary avail him to reduce the award.
In actions upon the quamtum meruit recovery may be had of a



fense is by way of mitigation) ; Mc
Grath v. Marcliant, 117 Md. 472
Miller v. Sealy Oil Mill & Mfg. Co.
— Tex. Civ. App. — , 166 S. W
1182; Simpson v. Ball, 145 Mo
App. 268; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Wal
ters, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 355; Pea
cock V. Coltrane, 44 Tox. Civ. App
530; King v. Steiren, 44 Pa. 09, 84
Am. Dee. 419; Wirth v. Callioun, 64
Neb. 316; Georgia, etc. R. Co. v.
Parsons, 12 Ga. App. 180; Hudson
V. Yeomen of America, 176 111. App.
445; American C. D. Co. v. Boyd,
148 Fed. 258; Hancock v. Board of
Education, 140 Cal. 554; Phillips
L. Co. v. Smith, 7 Ga. App. 222
Realty Co. v. Ellis, 4 Ga. App. 402
Wood v. Ravenscroft, 135 Iowa 346
Beissel v. Vermillion Farmers' E.
Co., 102 Minn. 229, 12 L.R.A.(N.S.)
403; Tenzer V. Gilmore, 114 Mo.
App. 210; Steadley v. Stuckey, 113
Mo. App. 582; School Dist. v. Mc-
Donald, 68 Neb. 610; Milage v.
Woodward, 186 N. Y. 252; Smith v.
Lumber Co., 142 N. C. 26; Lake
Shore & W. R. Co. v. Tierney, 8 Ohio
C. C. (N.S.) 521, affirmed by su-
preme court without opinion; Quick
V. Swing, 53 Ore. 149; Latimer v.
York C. Mills, 66 S. C. 135; Graf v.
Laev, 120 Wis. 177; Addis v. Gram-
ophone Co. (1909), App. Cas. 488;
Aldaz V. Gay, 7 Phillip. Isl. 268;
Van Winkle v. Satterfield, 58 Ark.
617 ; Kelley v. Louisville & N. R. Co.,
49 111. App. 304; Fish v. Glass, 54
id. 655; Hamilton v. Love, 152 Ind.
641, 71 Am. St. 384; Pennsylvania
Co. V. Dolan, 6 Ind. App. 109, 51
Am. St. 289 ; Farrell v. School Dist.,
98 Mich. 43; Allen v. Whitlark, 99
Mich. 492; Chisholm v. Preferred
Bankers' L. Assur. Co., 112 Mich.
50; Boland v, Glendale Q. Co., 127



Mo. 520; Bassett v. French, 10 N.
Y. Misc. G72; Hcyer v. Cunningham
P. Co., 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 504; Wink-
ler V. Racine W. & C. Co., 99 Wis.
184; Mathesius v. Brooklyn Heights
R. Co., 96 Fed. 792; Rosenberger v.
Pacific Coast R. Co., Ill Cal. 313,
citing the text; Pinet v. INIontague,
103 Mich. 516; Dearing v. Pear-
son, 8 N. Y. Misc. 269, 276, citing
the text; Babcock v. Appleton Mfg.
Co., 93 Wis. 124; Dunn v. Daly, 78
Cal. 640; Brown v. Board of Edu-
cation, 29 111. App. 572; School Di-
rectors V. Kimniel, 31 id. 537; Miller
v. Boot & S. Co., 26 Mo. App. 57;
Koenigkraemer v. Missouri G. Co.,
24 id. 124; Saxonia M. & R. Co. v.
Cook, 7 Colo. 569; Strauss v. Meer-
tief, 64 Ala. 299, 38 Am. Rep. 8;
Ansley v. Jordan, 61 Ga. 482; Rob-
erts v. Crowley, 81 id. 429; Hinch-
liflFe v. Koontz, 121 Ind. 422; Lar-
kin V. Hecksher, 51 N. J. L. 133, 3
L.R.A. 137; Fee v. Orient F. Co., 36
Fed. 509; Costigan v. Mohawk, etc.
R. Co., 2 Denio 609; Howard v.
Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 19 Am. Rep. 285;
Gillis V. Space, 63 Barb. 177; King
V. Sturer, 44 Pa. 99, 84 Am. Dec.
419; Griffin v. Brooklyn B. Club,
68 App. Div. (N. Y.) 56G; Chamber-
lain V. Morgan, 68 Pa. 168. See
Gazette P. Co. v. Morss, 60 Ind. 153;
Williams v. Chicago C. Co., 60 111.
149.

In some states the plaintiff must
show his diligence to get other em-
ployment and wliat lie lias been able
to realize. Hunt v. Crane, 33 Miss.
669, 69 Am. Dec. 381; Fowler v.
Waller, 25 Tex. 695; McDanicI v.
Parks, 19 Ark. 671; Huntington v.
Ogdensburgh, etc. R. Co., 33 How.
Pr. 416. See Whitaker v. Sandifor,
I Duv. 261; Willoughby v. Thomas,



2562



SUTHERLAND ON DAMAGES.



[§ 693



sum not exceeding the stipulated price.^^ On its being shown
by the defendant that the plaintiff has declined employment
because he could not succeed in getting what he wanted and
that he made no effort to secure work of the kind in which he
had been engaged, he is not bound to show the precise amount
the plaintiff could have earned; the latter was bound to give
evidence limiting the result of his failure to do his duty.
Under such a state of facts there can be a recovery of only
nominal damages ; ^' but such evidence does not entirely defeat
the action.^® The right to the emoluments of a public office fol-
low the right to hold it though possession is not taken because
of the mistake of other public officers.^^ The right to the fees
received is co-extensive with the officer's title; but if the office
has been filled by a person who received the certificate of elec-
tion the expense of earning them will be deducted on its having
been judicially determined that he was not elected.^" An officer



24 Gratt. 521; Busell T. Co. v. Co-
burn, 188 Mass. 2.54, 69 L.E.A. 821;
Gottlieb V. Coutant, 70 Misc. (N.
Y.) 250; Maynard v. Royal Wor-
cester C. Co., 200 Mass. 1 (seem-
ingly favoring the general rule).

In Kentucky the wrongful dis-
missal of a servant does not raise a
presumption of damage; hence he
must allege that it will result in
his being unemployed during the im-
expired term of his engagement,
otherwise only nominal damages can
be recovered. Lewis v. Scott, 14 Ky.
L. Rep. 713 (Ky. Super. Ct.).
Bridgeford v. Meagher, 144 Ky. 479.

Tlie general rule as to the burden
of proof does not govern where the
plaintiff admits that he abandoned
other employment for an insufficient
reason and that it was more profit-
able than that from which he had
been discharged. Foringer v. New
Kensington S. Co., 223 Pa. 425.

In the absence of clear evidence
as to the ability of the plaintiff to
fecure other employment if he was



engaged part of the time after he
was discliarged in preliminary prep-
arations for doing business on his
own account, the trial judge may be
satisfied by inferences that other
employment might have been ob-
tained and the amount which could
have been earned. INIaynard v.
■Royal Worcester C. Co., 200 Mass. 1.

In Mississippi it has been held
that if emjjloyment is obtained it is
presumed the employee got the best
wages he could, because the strong
inducement of self-interest would
impel him to do so, and it would be
most unreasonable to assume he did
not. Hunt v. Crane, supra.

26 Peacock v. Coltrane, 44 Tex.
Civ. App. 530.

27Ruland v. Waukesha W. Co.,
52 App. Div. (N. Y.) 280.

28 Troy F. Co. v. Logan, 96 Ala.
619.

29 Rule V. Tait, 38 Kan. 765.
SOMayfield v. Moore, 53 111. 428,

5 Am. Rep. 52.



§ 693]



CONTEACTS AXD SERVICES.



2563



illegally removed may recover the damages proximately result-
ing, and the loss of salary during the period since he instituted
proceedings, while not decisive, may be considered in fixing the
compensation.^^ But under a statute giving such officer the
right to the emoluments of his office during the period of his
exclusion therefrom, the damages are merely nominal. ^^

The plaintiff is not required to diminish the damages meas-
ured by the agreed wages by engaging in a different em-
ployment ; ^' nor at a different place ; ^* nor under a contract
covering a longer period than that breached by the defendant.^^
If, however, compensation is received for services rendered in a
dissimilar employment the damages are lessened correspond-



81 Hill V. Mayor, 193 Mass. 569
{sub noin. Hill v. Fitzgerald), cit-
ing Johnson v. Walker, 155 Jlass.
253; People v. Supervisors, 28 N. Y
112; People v. Musical P. Union,
118 N. Y. 181; Marion B. Soc. v.
Commonwealth, 31 Pa. 82; Hibernia
F. E. Co. V. Same, 93 Pa. 264;
People V. Morton, 24 App. Div. (N.
Y.) 563.

32 Hill V. Mayor, supra; Ransom
V. City of Boston, 193 Mass. 537.

83 Inland Steel Co. v. Harris, 49
Ind. App. 157 ; Cooper v. Stronge,
]]1 Minn. 177, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.)
1011; Barney v. Spangler, 131 Mo.
App. 58; Hussey v. Holloway, 217
Mass. 100; Briscoe v. Litt, 19 Misc.
(N. Y.) 5; McKinley v. Goodman, 67
111. App. 374 (not required to seek
employment in occupations difl'erent
in their general nature and char-
acter) ; Strauss v. Meertief, 64 Ala.
299, 38 Am. Rep. 8; Holloway v.
Talbot, 70 Ala. 389; Fuchs v. Koer-
ner, 107 N. Y. 529. But see Perry
V. Simpson \V. Co., 37 Conn. 520.

A teacher vi lio has been employed
to teach in a graded school is not
bound to seek or accept service in an
ordinary district school. Farrell v.



School Dist., 98 Mich. 43; Byrne v.
Independent School Dist., infra.

The defendant must shoAV that a
teacher might have accepted a posi-
tion in a higher grade in the school
without modifying the original con-
tract. "Tf plaintiff had accepted the
offer as alleged to have been made
and found herself incompetent for
the new work she would have been
liable to discharge under the new
agreement, and her rights under the
other would have been lost. " Jack-
son V. Independent School Dist., 110
Iowa 313.

34 Byrne v. Independent School
Dist., 139 Iowa 618; Evcsson v.
Ziegfeld, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 79; Cos-
tigan v. Mohawk, etc. R. Co., 2
Denio 609.

In an action against a labor or-
ganization for maliciously procurin"'»
the discharge of an employee he is
not bound to show, in order to re-
cover for time lost, that he sought
employment in other localities than
that in which he had been employed.
Connell v. Stalker, 20 Misc. (N. Y.)
423.

36 Griffin v. Brooklyn B. Club, OS
App. Div. (N. Y.) 566.



2564



SUTHERLAND ON DAMAGES.



[§ 693



ingly.^^ The employee is not boimd to accept service of the
employer who has wrongfully discharged him at less wages than
the original contract stipulated for, if to do so would he a modi-
fication of that contract and a waiver of the right to chiim
under it." The rejection of such an offer neither prejudices
the employer's right of action nor affects the amount he may
recover.^' But an offer to continue in the same employment
under the terms of the original contract, if nothing has occurred
to make it degrading for the employee to do so, or he will not
suffer loss or injury thereby, must be accepted; if it is refused
he cannot recover for such time as he thereafter remains un-
employed.^^ If the dismissed employee fails to secure other
employment and goes to work for himself, it is held in Mich-
igan that the value of his services is not to be deducted from his
claim against his former employer.*'' A more reasonable doc-



36 Stevens v. Crane, 37 Mo. App.
487 ; School Directors v. Birch, 9:^
111. App. 499; Heiferman v. Green-
hut Cloak Co., 83 Misc. (N. Y.)
435. Contra, Sheffield v. Page, 1
Sprague, 285 (wages earned by
mate of vessel before the mast ) . A
lawful discharge of an employee
from a new employment does not
affect his right to recover from an
employer who wrongfully discharged
him, if, after the lawful discharge,
he obtains other employment for
better wages and a longer time.
Allen V. Maronne, 93 Tenn. 161.

37Hussey v. Holloway, 217 Mass.
100; Miller v. Sealy Oil Mill & Mfg.
Co., — Tex. Civ. App. — , 166 S.
W. 1182.

38 People's Co-op. Ass'n v. Lloyd,
77 Ala. 387; Whitmarsh v. Little-
field, 46 Hun 418; Trawick v.
Peoria, etc. St. R. Co., 68 111. App.
156; Cliisholm v. Preferred Bank-
ers' L. Assur. Co., 112 Mich. 50;
Howard v. Vauglian-M. S. Co., 82
Mo. App. 405; Wilson v. Kisri, 18
New Zeal. 816.



39Birdsong v. Ellis, 62 Miss. 418;
Saunders v. Anderson, 2 Hill ( S.
C.) 486; Mitchell v. Toale, 25 S.
C. 238, 60 Am. Rep. 502; Bigclow
V. American F. P. Mfg. Co., 39 Huu
599; Beymer v. McBride, 37 Iowa
114; Squire v. Wright, 1 Mo. App.
172; Wilson v. Kisri, 18 New Zeal.
816, citing the text; Brace v. Cal-
der, [1895] 2 Q. B. 253.

In an action upon the contract the ■
defendant cannot prove an offer to
give the plaintiff other employment.
Hecht V. Brandus, 4 Misc. (N Y. )
58.

40 Harrington v. Gics, 45 Mich.
374.

In a recent Texas case it was
held that where an employee
wrongfully discharged was ill for
a while, the period of sucli illness
could not be deducted from his
damage recoverable for breach of
the contract. Miller v. Sealy Oil
Mill & Mfg. Co., — Tex. Civ. App.
— , 166 S. W. 1182.



§ 693] CONTKACTS AND SERVICES. 2565

trine is that the employer cannot lessen the damages due by
showing that the employee has performed work on his own
account unless he proves that such work was incompatible with
the service due under the broken contract.*^ Where the dis-
charged employee was engagetl for one-half his time only and
could have earned the same sum as was earned after his dis-
charge in the time that was his own, the employer's liability
was for the full amount of the contract price.**^ Any loss re-
sulting to the employee from the exercise of his right to work
for others than the employer is too remote and speculative."
Where the discharged employee leased a farm whatever sum
would be reasonable wages for such service as he rendered there-
on should be deducted from his recovery against his employer.**
The share of the profits of a business in which an employee
engages may be deducted from his recovery ; *® but if he is a
member of a partnership engaged in conducting an independent
business in which he has put capital the fact that he participates
in the management of the business after his discharge does not
lessen the liability of his employer unless he shows that the
profits made subsequent to the discharge were the result of the
personal services of such partner, in whole or in part, and, in
the latter case, the percentage which resulted from such serv-
ices.*® The pecuniary benefits obtained by a servant in engag-
ing in business for himself are measurable by the reasonable
value of his services to himself. This does not necessarily
mean the money profits realized, nor what it would have cost
to employ him or one like him. Though no profits were made
appreciable value may have resulted from the efforts put
forth.*' If the plaintiff has been constantly employed since his

*1 Van Winkle v. Satterfield, 58 whole sum due because of his dis-
Ark. 617, 23 L.R.A. 853; Gates v. charge.

School Dist. 57 Ark. 370; Hunt- « Tucker v. Horn, 31 Ky. L. Eep.

805.

44 Lee V. Hampton, 79 Miss. 321.

45 Richardson v. Hartmann, 68
42Mickolls V. College of Physi- j^un 9; Toplitz v. Ullman, 2 Misa

cians & S., 7 Cal. App. 233; Jaf- (\^- y.) 130.

fray v. King, 34 Md. 217. 46 Kyle v. Pou, 96 Ga. 166.

In Cox V. Adams, 1 Nott & McC. 47 Kramer v. Wolf C. S. Co., 99

284, the plaintiff recovered the Tex. 597.



ington V. Ogdensburgli, etc. R. Co.,
33 How. Pr. 416.



2566 ■ SUTHERLAND ON DAMAGES. [§ 693

discharge in the same occupation as before it will he presumed,
nothing appearing to the contrary, that his compensation was
not less than the defendant was to pay.** If the contract of
hiring was for a specified period at a weekly compensation and
the weekly compensation received after discharge is, because of
increased services, in excess of that the defendant was to pay
his liability is mitigated only to the extent that the earnings for
each week of such period equaled his obligation; the plaintiff
is entitled to the benefit of the excess of the time he devoted to
his later engagement.*^ The expense an employee would have
incurred in discharging his contract with the defendant is
properly deducted from his recovery.^" The duty to make rea-
sonable efforts to mitigate the damages the defendant may sus-
tain applies to one who has engaged to render personal seiwices
and to supply the services of others.^^ In considering the ex-
tent to which the defendant's liability has been mitigated by
the earnings of the plaintiff other questions are said to be in-
volved, viz. : Was the new employment of the same general
character, or was the labor more severe or the responsibility
greater or less ? Was the new business such as required the use
of capital, while that from which he was discharged did not ?
If a young man should enter into a contract with a merchant
to act as his clerk for a specified time at a stated salary and
be wrongfully discharged, and if the only employment he
could get would be to work as brakeman, would it be claimed
that because he received as much wages as brakeman as he was
to receive as clerk, such facts would constitute a defense to the
merchant ? Would they, as matter of law, operate as mitigation
of damages to such as were nominal merely? CleiTi'ly not,
simply the question of fact should be passed upon whether the
labor was not different in character and more severe in the per-
formance.^^ The employer is not concerned with the living ex-

*8 Schroeder v. California Yukon 61 Milage v. Woodward, 180 N. Y.

T. Co., 95 Fed. 290. 252; Levine v. Rosenschcim, 134

49Eve8son v. Ziegfeld, 22 Ta. App. Div. (X. Y.) 157.
Super. Ct. 79.

60 School Dist. V. McDonald, 68 ^^ Williams v. Chicago C. Co., 60

Neb. 610. 111. 149.



§ 694] CONTRACTS AND SEEVICES. 2567

penses of his employee, and the fact that they were lessened
after his discharge does not affect the damages which may be
recovered, the expenses forming no part of the cost of the per-
formance of the contra-ct.^'

It has been supposed that the right to recover at the rate of
the stipulated wages rests upon the fact that the service is
personal, and therefore during the term the employee keeps or
should keep himself in readiness actually to do the stipulated
work, and is not required or at liberty to enter into any engage-
ment inconsistent with his duties under the contract sued
upon.®* Where the party employed stipulated to cause certain
services to be performed, and was not expected or required to
render them in person, and they were to be performed for a
stated period for a stipulated sum, the contract was assimilated
to an agreement for particular work to be performed or mate-
rials to be furnished; the damages for the employer's breach
would be the difference between the cost of the work and the
amount agreed to be paid; the employee was entitled to a pro
rata compensation according to the terms of the contract for
the time he had performed and had not been paid, and for the
profits which he could have made during the residue of the time
the contract had to run.^^ If the employee's services are to be
supplemented by assistance he was to furnish his recovery will
be governed by the profits he would have made, less his earn-
ings from others.^^

§ 694. Same subject; liability for expenses and lost com-
missions. The damages recoverable are not wages for construct-
ive services, but compensation for being prevented from earn-
ing the stipulated wages according to the contract. If at the
beginning of the period hired for the employer refuses to take
the person employed into his service or afterw^ards, before the
end of that period, wa'ongfully discharges him, there is no fur-
ther duty on his part to be in readiness to perform or to decline
any engagement which would have been incompatible if the

63 Gates V. Scliool Dist., 57 Ark. 567. See Shannon v. Comstock, 21
370. Wend. 457.

64 Jaffray v. King, 34 Md. 217. 56 Wood v. Ravenscroft, 135 Iowa
66Ramey v. Holcombe, 21 Ala. 346,



2568 BUTHERLAND ON DAMAGES. [§ 694

other party had kept his agreement." The employer's violation
of his contract to employ for a specified time or service has
sometimes given a right to other damages than an eqnivalent for
the direct wages or salary thus prevented from being earned.
Thus, the defendant, residing in New Hampshire, by letter
proposed to the plaintiff, who was residing in Minnesota, that
if he wonld come to New Boston he might move into the de-
fendant's house ; that he would give the plaintiff and his wife a
year's board; and he might carry on the defendant's farm on
any terms he might elect; the plaintiff, accepting the offer,
moved there, and an arrangement for carrying on the farm was
made. On a breach of this contract, by refusing to allow him
to enter upon its performance, it was held that in assessing the
damages the jury might take into consideration the expenses of
such removal, which were treated as part of the consideration
paid by the plaintiff, and distinctly contemplated by the
parties.^^ In a later case the defendant orally agreed to give the
plaintiff a home if he would come and live with him, and to give
him the home at death. After performance by the plaintiff was
begun the defendant terminated the contract. He was liable
for reasonable compensation for the service rendered, for the
expense of moving to the place of its performance, the time lost
in doing so and the loss sustained in g'iving up his home and

67 Chase v. Alaska F. & L. Co., 2 Where S. contracted for the serv-

Alaska 82; McMullan v. Dickinson ices of himself and son for a given

Co., 60 Minn. 156, 27 L.R.A. 409, time at the rate of $50 per month,

63 Minn. 405; Arnold v. Adams, 27 and S. alone wont into the employ

App. Div. (N. Y.) 345; Kennedy v. of the employer and never tendered

South Shore Lumber Co., 102 Wis. the son's services, and it was not

284; Morris Mining Co. v. Knox, 96 shown that the latter was ready or

Ala. 320; Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. willing to give them, S. could not,

362, 19 Am. Rep. 285; Moody v. after being discharged before the

Leverich, 14 Abb. Pr. (N.S.) 145; termination of the contract period,

Sutherland v. Wyer, 67 Me. 64; 2 recover for the wrongful discharge.

Parsons on Cont. 40 and note. See Hale v. Shechan, 36 Neb. 439.

Shaw v. Repul)lic Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 68 Woodbury v. Jones, 44 N. H,

286; Peckwith v. Baldwin, 12 Ala. 206; Cadnian v. Markle, 76 Mich.

720; Williams v. Anderson, 9 Minn. 448, 5 L.R..\. 707. See also School

50; Heyer v. Cunningham Piano Dist. No. 3, Clear Creek Co. v. Nash,

Co., 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 504. 27 Colo. App. 551.



§ G94] CO^'TRACTS AND SERVICES. 2569

biisincp.3 in the place from which he removed.*^ In another late
case one discharged under a contract promising him material to
build a house and the rent of it free recovered his expenditures
in building it; these were not lessened bj the value of the rent
after he was discharged though he continued to occupy it, no
claim for rent having been asserted.®" It is material that any
expenses incurred are the consequences of the contract and be
contemplated when it is made.®^ Where the defendant, doing
business in Massachusetts, wrote to the plaintiff in the Sand-
wich Islands : ''I am ready to offer you a foreman's situation



Online LibraryJ. G. (Jabez Gridley) SutherlandA treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 3) → online text (page 13 of 132)