¶1The ruling of the court as to damages seems to have been in precise accordance with the stipulations of the defendant that at the expiration of the year he would take back all the stock which the plaintiff had in his hands remaining unsold, and pay him therefor the whole amount, both principal and interest, which the stock had then cost the plaintiff. This accords with the doctrine laid down in Thompson v. Alger, 12 Met. 443. The original relation of the parties at the time the contract was made had changed. The plaintiff had parted with his money on the faith of the defendant’s agreement to repay it at the expiration of the year. Unless he recovers principal and interest paid by him, he fails to get an indemnity for the defendant’s breach of his contract. Exceptions overruled.
98 Mass. 340
Thorndike v. Locke
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 15, 1867
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1867-11-15
Contract upon a written agreement between the parties, dated May 16,1864, the material portion of which is as follows: “ Whereas said Locke has this day assigned and transferred to said Thorndike the interest in certain gold mining property in Colorado, which he, the said Locke, purchased of L. L. Tower, being one undivided one-thirtieth part of the property to be owned by the following companies, namely, Caledonia, Washington, Wallace and Suffolk, when organized; now,…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1867-11-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 1933
10 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 →