Haskell v. McHenry

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1854

California Supreme Court · decided 1854-10-15

<p>Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.</p>

Relies on Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Heck

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1986

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

¶1delivered the opinion -of the Court.

Mr. Oh. J. Murray concurred.

¶2The contract declared on was an entirety. The first breach by the defendant was a breach of the whole, and discharged the plaintiff from the performance of any conditions on his part. It gave him a complete right of action.

¶3The rule of damages was properly decided, although the Court committed an error in instructing the jury that it was the difference between the contract price and the proceeds of the sale at auction. The true rule is the difference between the contract price and the market value, at the time of the breach, and so the Court afterwards charged. But the error, if not relieved by the subsequent instruction, has done no injury, as the evidence, without dispute, establishes that the price at the auction sale was the fair market value.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

¶5Cited, 50 Ind. 305; 10 Bank. Reg. 323, i