TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Peters v. Cooper

John Peters and Henry W. Webster v. Eli Cooper

Peters v. Cooper, 54 N.W. 694 (Mich. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 10, 1893
Judges
Montgomery, Other
Citations
54 N.W. 69495 Mich. 1911893 Mich. LEXIS 609
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Contract of sale — Damages—Pleading—Evidence. 1. The measure of damages for the breach by the vendee of an executory contract for the sale of cattle at an agreed -price for the'lot, a portion of which is paid down, and the remainder is to be'paid when the cattle are taken, within a specified time, is the difference between the contract price and the actual market value of tlie cattle; citing Sisson v. Railroad Co., 14 Mich. 489; Brownlee v. Bolton, 44 Id. 218. % The depreciation in the value of the cattle, and the expense incurred by the vendor in keeping them after the time fixed for their delivery, may be shown without the same being specially alleged in the declaration, in a suit to recover damages for such breach.
Summary
Error to Clinton. (Daboll, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Montgomery

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Montgomery, J.

This is an action to recover damages for the breach of an executory contract of sale. The proof tended to show that plaintiffs agreed to sell to defendant 27 head of cattle at the agreed price of $864, $64 of which purchase price was paid in hand, and the defendant agreed to pay the balance and take the cattle away within a certain time. The defendant failed to accept the cattle, except two, which were taken without plaintiffs” knowledge, or pay the agreed price.

The plaintiffs sought to show that at the date fixed for delivery the market value of cattle was very much less than the agreed price. This offer of testimony was excluded. The plaintiffs then proved that they made a sale of the cattle at a reduced price, and further 'offered to show that they incurred expense in keeping the cattle from the date fixed for the delivery by the contract until the date of resale. This was also excluded.

There was error in each ruling. A proper measure of *193 damages for such a breach of contract is the difference between the contract price and the actual market value. Brownlee v. Bolton, 44 Mich. 218 ; Sisson v. Railroad Co., 14 Id. 489.

The rulings would appear to have been based upon the failure to aver specially in the declaration the loss as consisting of depreciation, and to set out the fact that plaintiffs incurred expense in keeping the cattle until a resale was made. But this damage is the natural result of the breach, and need not be specially set out. The ad damnum is sufficient. Richter v. Meyer (Ind. App.), 31 N. E. Rep, 582; Parsons v. Sutton, 66 N. Y. 92 .

Judgment reversed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1894: 11903: 11905: 11908: 11909: 11910: 11918: 118942026peak 1894 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Redhead Bros. v. Wyoming Cattle Investment Co.102 N.W. 144 (Iowa 1905)
  2. Howard Supply Co. v. Wells176 F. 512 (6th Cir. 1910)
  3. Bussard v. Hibler71 P. 642 (Or. 1903)
  4. Taylor v. Capp121 N.E. 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 1918)
  5. Malcomson v. Reeves Pulley Co.167 F. 939 (6th Cir. 1909)
  6. Sherlag v. Kelley86 N.E. 293 (Mass. 1908)

Most recent

  1. Taylor v. Capp121 N.E. 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 1918)
  2. Howard Supply Co. v. Wells176 F. 512 (6th Cir. 1910)
  3. Malcomson v. Reeves Pulley Co.167 F. 939 (6th Cir. 1909)
  4. Sherlag v. Kelley86 N.E. 293 (Mass. 1908)
  5. Redhead Bros. v. Wyoming Cattle Investment Co.102 N.W. 144 (Iowa 1905)
  6. Bussard v. Hibler71 P. 642 (Or. 1903)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Parsons v. Sutton, 66 N.Y. 92 (1876) 52
Brownlee v. Bolton, 6 N.W. 657 (Mich. 1880) 20

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list