Shepherd v. Hampton

¶1(Common Law.)

¶2In an action by the vendee for the breach erf a contract ofsqlb oy the vendor, in not delivering the .articlo, the measure of damage ¡8 the price of the article at the time of the breach of the contract, and not-at any subsequent period.

¶3Quiere, How far this rHle applies to a ease where advances ofmoney , .have been made by the purchaser under the contract?

¶4Error to the district court of Louisiana.

¶5The plaintiffs filed their petition or libel in. the court below, stating, that on the 12th day of December, 1814, they énteré-d .into a contract with the defendant, for the purchase oi 100/000 pounds weight of cotton to be delivered by the defendant to the' plaintiff's on or before the 15th day of February, ensuing.the date'of said contract, the said cotton to be of prime quality, and in good order,, and for which the plaintiffs stipulated to pay at the rate of ten cents peí1 French pound; and in case the price ot cotton, at the time of delivery, should exceed the above limited price, then the' petitioners were to allow the coipmom market price on 50,000 pounds of said cottons and alleging a breach of the agreement on the- part of,the defendant in not delivering the cotton, & c.

¶6Tbe case agreed stated the contract as set forth in the petition, a,nd that 49,108 pounds of cotton were delivered by the defendant unffef the contract about the time mentioned therein, to wit, on the 15th day *201*>f February, 1815, when the highest market price of coHon at New-Orleans was 12 cents per pound; that the defendant refused to deliver the remaining 50,892 pounds of cotton ; that for some days after the said 15th day of February, 1815, the price of eotton remained stationary at about lit cents; that it then began to rise» and continued gradually to rise until the commence, ment of this suit, when the market price was 30 cents . per pound, and that the plaintiffs frequently called upon and demanded of the defendant the execution of said contract between the said 15th ef February, 1815, and the time of bringing the present suit, and were ready and offered to comply with all the stipulations en their part, which waá refused by the defendant.

¶7Upon this st^te of the case the defendant contended, that the rule of damages for the breach of the contract must be the market price of cotton on the day the contract ought to have been executed.

¶8The plaintiffs contended, that they were entitled to the difference between the price stipulated, and the highest market price up to the rendition of the judg. ment.

¶9It was agreed, that, if the court should be nf opinion that the law is with the defendant, then judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs for the sum of 100 dollars damages; but if the court should be of opinion that the law was with the plaintiffs, then judgment should.be entered' for the plaintiffs for the difference between ten cents, the stipulated price, and thirty cents per pound, the present market price on the said *20250,892 pounds of cotton, amounting to 10,178 dolíais and 40 cents.

¶10The cause was heard, according, to the practice in t^e state of Louisiana, by the court below, ®n the Case agreed, neither party demanding a jury.a Whfcrfe*203upon, after, judgment, judgment was entered up'for the plaintiff for the sum of 100 dollars damágés, w'th costay and the cause was brought by writ of error to this court.

¶11Mr. Winder for the plaintiffs,

¶12contended, that they were entitled to recover the difference between the stipulated price of the cotton and the highest market'. price at any time after the contract was made, up to the rendition of the judgment. He cited the authorise» in the margin.a

¶13No counsel appeared to argue the cause on the other side.