Dana v. Fiedler

Several questions were raised during the trial as to the admission of testimony, which I will notice in the order in which they are stated in the defendant’s points.

The defendant’s counsel asked the witness what would have been the effect of an additional supply of madder, to the extent of 150 casks, in the market on the 1st of April, 1850, on the market value of that article ?

The question was considered irrelevant, and the evidence excluded by the court.

The only ground on which such a question could be urged, is that it might affect the amount of damages which the plaintiff might recover, and that by showing that so large an amount of the article introduced into the market at that time, would reduce the price to the sum, or below the sum agreed to be paid for it, no loss would accrue to the purchaser for the non-delivery of it under the contract.

It was conceded by the defendant’s counsel on the argument, that the rule of damages, as given by the judge to the jury, was correct, viz.: “that the rule of damages is the difference between the market value of the article contracted for, on the day it should have been delivered, and the price which the plaintiffs agreed to pay for it.” The ordinary and proper

Second. It would be altogether too uncertain a mode of ascertaining the value. It would render necessary an examination of the quantity ordinarily required to supply the mar

Third. There was nothing to warrant the conclusion that the purchaser intended to put it in the market here, and if not, then the mere introduction of the madder into the country without being intended for sale, could neither increase nor diminish the market value of what remained.

Fourth. Because the defendant is presumed to have on hand, or under his control, the article he contracts to sell; and if so, it is immaterial as to the market value whether the same was held by the purchaser or seller.

Fifth. It would be manifestly improper to allow a party to violate a contract, and then, when called to account for such a violation, to allow him to speculate upon the consequences to the plaintiff, if he had performed his contract, and thus to obtain an excuse for such violation.

Other reasons might easily be mentioned to show that this examination, as to the effect upon the market of the additional quantity contracted for, was properly excluded. The inquiry was altogether too remote, and the result of the examination would be too uncertain for the purposes intended, even if it was not excluded for the other reasons above stated.

A question was put to the witnesses as to what kind of a supply 150 tons of madder would be for this market, which was also excluded.

From what has before been said, it must be evident that this question was also improper. It, no doubt, was offered with a view of showing, as was attempted by the former question, that 150 tons of madder were not necessary for the usual supply. The inquiry was of the same character as the former, and for the same reasons was properly excluded.

The defendant’s counsel inquired what kind of stock for a printing works would 150 tons be ?

The defendant’s counsel asked what was the ordinary market value of French madder. This question was excluded, and the defendant excepted thereto. The ordinary market value of madder was not at all material to the decision of the question before the jury. If the ordinary value had been 10 cents, for a year before, and on the 1st of April, it was, as proved, 15 cents, it could not have afforded the jury any assistance in fixing the damages, because they were to be governed by the price as it existed at the time of performance fixed in the contract. An inquiry which did not establish the value at that time was not material to the issue.

The defendant’s counsel then asked the witness what was the range of the market value of madder for three months before and after the 1st of April, 1850.

The propriety of this question being answered, was urged upon the ground, that no sales having been made of madder on the 1st day of April, there was no market value on that day, and therefore prices before and after were to be admitted in order to ascertain by an average that value. The court excluded the answer to the question.

Previous to the putting of this as well as the preceding question, the defendant had examined the witness as to the value on that day, and he had stated that value to be from 12 to 15½ cents, according to the quality. The witness could not state any sale on the 1st of April, but did on the 15th April, at 15½

A somewhat similar question has been considered by the supreme court of this state, in Gregory v. McDowell (8 Wend, p. 435). In that case, in order to ascertain the market value of shingles on a particular day, at a particular place, evidence was offered and received of the value of them at neighboring places, and the expense of transportation to the place of performance. The court held such admission of testimony to be erroneous, where there was explicit evidence of the market value at the place of delivery. Such value must control, no matter what the value is at other places. So, in this case, where the evidence is clear as to the value at or about the time of performance, such value must control, whatever may have been the value before or after that period. The time of delivery was the period in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was executed, that was the time when the plaintiffs arranged to receive the property, and, for aught known to the court, he may have entered into contracts for the sale at the market value of that day. No other value than of that day could satisfy the engagements of both parties. In all these questions as to the admission of evidence relating to the value, was involved the general question as to the rule of damages in such cases. That rule, as generally understood, was given to the jury by the court and without objection, viz., the difference between the contract price and the market value on the day of performance. The difference which has arisen in the courts, as to allowing the plaintiffs to claim the highest price previous to trial, where the consideration money has.been paid, does not affect this case, because no payment was made by the plaintiffs on the contract, and the only difficulty appears to have been as to the mode of arriving at such value. That this rule was correct, is apparent by reference to the cases cited. (15 M. & Wels. 136 ; 2 Barn. & Cres. 624 ; 3 Man. Gr.

For the reasons before stated, I am also of opinion, there was no error on the part of the judge in excluding the evidence offered by the defendant, for the purpose of affecting the amount of damages by introducing a different rule than the one given; or, in other words, by establishing a different value than the actual price or market value on the day of performance.

In all the cases I have cited, and, in fact, in all that I have examined on the subject, I have found but one in which any intimation is given to the contrary, and that case was so peculiar in its character, and the consequences which would attend the enforcement of the rule would have been so inequitable, as perhaps to lead the learned chief justice, who delivered the opinion, to more latitude of expression than he would have used under ordinary circumstances. I refer to the case in 3 Hill, 333 . That case was one between bailor and bailee, and admitted of a somewhat different rule as to damages than what could be adopted between vendor and vendee. Even in that case, the court sustained the exclusion of testimony, to show that within a year after the time of performance the article contracted for had so fallen in the market as to be utterly valueless, and the chief justice remarked, that such evidence proposed to take into consideration the fluctuations of the market value long subsequent to the time when the injury happened (or the breach of the contract); thereby making the measure of damages to depend upon the accidental fall of prices at some future period, which might or might not occur.

The proposal to show "a depreciation of the value of the article, even in its best condition, after the time of injury or breach' of contract, was in that case held to be immaterial, and properly rejected.

On the trial of the case now before us, after the plaintiffs rested, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint.

1. Because Dana assigned to the other plaintiffs an interest

2. Because the contract was void for ambiguity.

3. Because there was no performance or proper offer to perform on the part of Dana.

4. Because the contract was not completed by a proper undertaking of Fearing & Hall, to accept the drafts of Dana, and was therefore without consideration.

The first point was not seriously pressed upon the argument. The rule that a claim for damages for a mere personal tort is not assignable, has no application to a demand arising upon contract, and there is nothing in the evidence which will in any way bring this case within the definition of champerty.

Besides, Dana was acting for all the plaintiffs, and made the contract for their joint benefit. Even without the assignment, the plaintiffs were the real parties in interest, and were in equity the owners of the contract, and of all benefits resulting therefrom.

The objection to the contract itself, as being void for ambiguity, is deserving of more consideration.

This objection applies to the figures which the plaintiffs contend designate the price and the terms of credit, the same being stated in the contract, as ‘ 12¼, 6 ms.”

The defendant insists that no parol evidence can be given to explain the meaning of these terms. That where the statute requires the contract to be in writing, no parol testimony can be received to supply the defect. The latter principle, I think, must be conceded ; and if the testimony received was for that purpose, it was erroneously admitted. But where the evidence was only to explain the terms used, and not to alter the agreement, the rule is different. If the contract had been made payable in some foreign coin, it would not be denied that parol evidence might be resorted to, to show the value of such coin. In this case the term 6 ms. is complete, but may require an explanation of the term, so as to enable the jury to ascertain what in ordinary commercial language such an abbreviation was used to represent. So far as the evidence was

The parol evidence objected to was also given to explain the term 12¼.

This evidence was as to the mode in which madder was usually sold, and the answer was by the pound, and at so many cents per pound. With such' testimony the contract is easily understood, and without it, it is unintelligible. Whether the motion was properly denied must therefore depend upon the question as to the admissibility of the evidence.

Although the question is not free from difficulty, I am of the opinion that the rule requiring this contract to be in writing, will not exclude the testimony. It neither adds to nor varies the contract. It is offered merely to explain the meaning of certain figures used by the parties in their contract, and the figures used form one of those terms which are to be expounded according to the usage and custom of persons dealing in that business. The evidence itself was merely intended to show the mode among merchants of dealing in that commodity, which formed the subject of the contract. In the language of Ch.

I concede that any omission in the contract, as written, cannot be supplied by parol. If the price or the term of credit or the quantity was wanting, no parol evidence could be allowed to show' what that was intended to be ; but where the contract contains all that is necessary to understand what the parties agreed to do, when the evidence explaining the usages of the trade in reference to it is admitted, such usage may be resorted to for the purpose of aiding in the interpretation of the contract. (5 Mill. Lou. Rep. 575, 279.)

This evidence does not alter the conditions of the contract. Its only object is to explain that which is per se unintelligible ; and parol evidence is admissible to explain terms used in the contract which are incomplete, if such explanation is not inconsistent with the written terms. (See cases cited in 1 Smith’s Lead. Cas. p. 305, &c. ; 3 Mann. & Gr. 450 ; Story on Con. sec. 267 ; 1 Greenleaf’s Ev. 282, 8, 292, 8.)

If the evidence was properly admitted, then there was no such ambiguity in the contract for which the motion to dismiss the complaint could be granted.

Another ground on which this motion was urged at the trial was, that there was no performance, or offer to perform, on the part of Dana.

The demand was made and accompanied with a blank acceptance of Fearing & Hall, and with a note from Fearing & Hall that they had accepted in blank, and that Mr. Dana was

We think, therefore, the motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied.

The sixth and seventh points made by the defendant were not urged on the argument.

The evidence that was excluded related to matters which could have no bearing upon the merits of the controversy. The same remark applies to the eighth point.

The question put to the witness was objectionable, because it called for the mere opinion of a witness, founded on a supposed fraud, and also because there was nothing in the pleadings which allowed the defendant to set up fraud as a defence. Even if such a defence had been admissible, the opinion of a witness as to the effect of putting members of a firm on negotiable paper, as separate individuals, would not he proper, until other evidence had been given to warrant a suspicion that such fraud had been committed.

The defendant’s counsel also inquired as to what the defendant had done in reference to the prompt execution of the contract, which was excluded, unless the defendant would show a delivery, or readiness to deliver, or that there was a shipment, and the arrival prevented by the dangers of the seas. That such evidence could have no connection with the real question at issue between the parties, must he apparent from the consideration that the action was for a breach of a contract, and that performance, or a good excuse for nonperformance, was all that the defendant could resort to as a defence, if the contract was a valid one.

The evidence excluded was not intended to show either of those grounds, and could have produced no other effect upon

The 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th points were abandoned on the argument, and are clearly untenable.

The defendant offered sundry bills of lading of madder on board of vessels at Marseilles. This evidence was objected to, and the court ruled that the bills of lading were not competent evidence to show the time the vessel sailed.

This decision did not exclude the bills of lading if they were offered for any other purpose than to prove the time of sailing ; but from the decision of the judge at the trial, I conclude that they were offered for this purpose. There is no ground of objection to the ruling, as far as any decision was made by the judge. It cannot be pretended that the bills of lading could in any way fix the day on which the vessels sailed. There was also better evidence of the time of sailing given by the same witness, who stated the time of arrival, and the length of passage each vessel had; thus showing the time of sailing more definitely than the proposed evidence could in any way make out.

There was nothing in the additional ground stated by the defendant’s counsel on the renewed motion to dismiss the complaint, which called for the granting of that motion.

The notes containing the terms of the contract, were signed by the respective parties, who signed their names after the words, “ I or we agree to this contract.” It requires no stretch of the imagination, nor the indulgence of any legal fiction, to

The only portion of the judge’s charge which was excepted to, was that allowing the plaintiffs interest on the difference of value, from the maturity of the contract.

In Gilpin v. Consequa, (Peters’ C. C. Rep. 85,) it was held, that interest was not to be allowed on unliquidated damages, and in that case the action was for not delivering teas pursuant to a contract.

In Dox v. Dey, ( 3 Wend. 356 ,) a direction to the jury that they might, in an action for not delivering wheat, allow interest in addition to the value by way of damages, was said not to be contrary to law.

In McLaughlin v. Washington Ins. Co. ( 23 Wend. 525 ,) an action on a policy of insurance, the rule is stated from 1 J. R. 315, that interest is hot recoverable upon unliquidated damages, or for an uncertain demand, but that jurors have a discretion to allow interest by way of damages, according to the circumstances of the case.

In Bridge v. Niagara Ins. Co. ( 1 Hall, 261 ,) and in the last' case, it was held, that where the proofs did not furnish sufficient evidence to make up the amount of the loss, interest was not recoverable.

In Beals v. Terry, (2 Sandf. Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 127,) it was distinctly held, that in an action for non-delivery of goods, the rule of damages was the difference in the value and the contract price, with interest on such difference. None of the cases cited by the learned judge, who delivered the opinion in that case, refer to the question of interest, but only state the rule as to ascertaining the amount of damages from the difference between the contract price and the market value; and the distinction which is found in the previous cases beween a direction to the jury to allow interest, and a discretion on the part of the jury to allow it byway of damages, if they thought fit, appears to have been overlooked.

My conclusion is, that the charge on this point was erroneous in directing the allowance of interest, and that the plaintiffs must remit that amount; or that a new trial must be ordered, with costs to abide the event.

On the trial herein, the judge charged the jury that the rule of damages, on the breach of a special contract, for the delivery of a specific quantity of madder of a certain quality mentioned, and on a day fixed by the contract, is the difference between the market value of the article on the day it should have been delivered, and the price which the plaintiffs agreed to pay for it; and that the plaintiffs (if they recover) are entitled to interest upon such difference from the day fixed by the contract for such delivery.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs in conformity with these directions, but found specially the aforesaid difference,

In my opinion, it is in all respects equitable and just that the plaintiffs should receive the interest upon the actual amount of loss sustained by them, by the breach of the defendant’s contract, and I am not satisfied that the charge in this particular is in violation of any rule of law.

In actions for breach of contract, the object of damages is to give the plaintiff indemnity—to place him, so far as can be done, (without indulging in mere speculation, touching possible or probable profits from contemplated adventures,) in as good a condition as he would have been in had the defendant performed his contract.

The law, therefore, says, the plaintiff, having purchased goods deliverable on a future day certain, has a right to have the goods on that day / it assumes, also, that he hath need of them on that day; and that (the defendant failing to deliver) the plaintiff will buy them elsewhere ; and if he have to pay therefor a larger sum than that at which the defendant had agreed to deliver, he may seek, and shall recover from the defendant the excess.

This excess is then clue to him from the defendant on that day. It is then that the defendant was bound to. protect the plaintiff by making the delivery; it is then that the plaintiff has been compelled to make an advance of money to make up to himself the defendant’s default.

This view is at the foundation of the rule, (now, as I conceive, well settled, and in this case not questioned by the defendant’s counsel,) that the difference between the contract price and the market value is the basis upon which the damages must be computed. The amount is at that time ascertainable by an easy reference to the then open market value, (a fact notorious

Another view of the plaintiff’s rights leads to the same result. The plaintiff has a right to have the goods on the day named; if they are delivered, he will realize therefor the market value on that day. He is entitled to the benefit of his contract. Here is no contingency—no speculation about profits—the goods are worth the difference, and that difference the plaintiff loses. And the defendant gains it by his own default. This is the legal presumption. That difference, justice and equity require the defendant to pay over to the plaintiff on that day, and the rule of damages, last above stated, requires him to do so. The plaintiff may, or may not, have purchased with a view to sell again; he may have purposed to sell, or intended to hold, or to consume. Having purchased, he has a right to his option, and the law deems the open market value of the article to be the real value of the subject of the purchase to him.

Whether, then, the difference to which the plaintiff is entitled, be regarded as an excess which the plaintiff has been compelled, by the defendant’s default, to pay, in order to supply himself with the article, or as a profit lost by the plaintiff, and gained by the defendant, by the like default, it is due to the former from the latter—it is due on the contract—it is due on the day. The amount is certain, because the rule is settled, and is precise. When the facts are ascertained, i. e., when the known market value is adverted to, there is no room for discretion—no reason for delay, doubt or hesitation. Computation states the sum, and it is due on the very day specified.

So far, all is clear; nor to this point in the inquiry does the defendant’s counsel object to the result.

Why, then, (if the defendant will neither make good his contract by delivering the article, nor by paying the difference,) should he not pay interest ? There can be no indemnity without it. The plaintiff has paid the money in supplying him

But it is argued by the defendant’s counsel, that interest is not recoverable upon uncertain or unliquidated demands, and such is undoubtedly the language of the books.

It does not, however, follow that the plaintiffs’ claim here is of that loose and uncertain character which makes the proposition applicable.

"Where nothing remains to be done between the parties to a claim, either to adjust or settle the amount, fix the liability, or apprise the defendant of all the facts necessary to enable him to pay the amount, which he knows the plaintiff has a right to require, and does demand, and where the amount to be paid is measured by a precise legal rule, I cannot regard the demand as either unliquidated or uncertain in such sense that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest as a rule of law. When the facts in the present case were ascertained, no liquidation nor adjustment was necessary. Computation was all that the jury were required to do, and there was no room for discretion¡ the damages were as certain, in a legal sense, as if expressed in the writing.

In the case of running accounts, the implication from the course of dealing is, that no interest is intended or expected until the accounts are adjusted and settled, and then the reason and the rule cease together.

In actions on policies of insurance, the damages (where the loss is partial) are unliquidated in precisely the same sense, and only in the same sense, as in the case now under consideration ; and in cases which have been cited, (Bridge v. Niagara Ins. Co. 1 Hall, 261 ; McLaughlin v. Washington Ins.

So of claims for moneys payable on demand as for wages, or for money had and received by an agent or factor in due course of business, or on a contract in terms payable on demand. In actions of tort, where the rule of damages is not definite and certain, as in assault and battery, the amount of damages is, in a certain sense, discretionary with the jury. They may give what are called exemplary damages, according to the degree of aggravation which they find to characterize the act complained of. The whole case, with all its circumstances, is submitted to the jury, and they are called upon to apply their own judgment, not to apply a legal rule, and make a computation thereby. Here there is no recovery of interest, for the defendant has no fixed rule by which he can make compensation. The same is true in slander, and actions in which fraud is a ground of claim, either as the principal cause of action or matter of aggravation. But in trover, where the measure of damages (as settled in this state) is certain, viz., the market value of the goods—in this respect being precisely like the case now under consideration—interest is allowed from the day of the conversion, and for the same reason which is above given for allowing interest, viz., to indemnify the plaintiff. (Bissell v. Hopkins, 4 Cow. 53 ; Dillenback v. Jerome, 7 Cow. 294 ; Hyde v. Stone, 7 Wend. 354 ; Baker v. Wheeler, 8 Wend. 504 ; Stevens v. Low, 2 Hill, 133 ; Clark v. Whitaker, 19 Conn. 320 .)

It was insisted, that while it is erroneous to charge as a matter of law, that the plaintiff is entitled to interest, yet it might be left to the jury to give interest or not, as they should think proper; that it is a matter resting in their discretion.

I do not perceive either the propriety nor the soundness of this view of the subject, though I am aware that it has been

In regard to the first case, which was an action on a policy of insurance, it is sufficient to say, that it is in conflict with 2 Hall, 631 , and the contrary is distinctly stated in 23 Wend. 527 , both above referred to. Other cases in principle, overruling this, in the supreme court and the court of appeals, will be afterwards noticed. And in regard to the second case, (Dox v. Dey,)—the jury having allowed interest upon a breach of contract precisely similar to that upon which the present verdict is founded—it was held not to be erroneous, i. e., not to be an error of which the defendant could complain, that the judge had charged them that they “ might allow interest if they thought proper.”

For myself, I prefer to adopt the decision of the late learned chief justice Spencer, in a case in which the facts bear no analogy to the present, but in which the general principle decided was distinctly discussed; viz., that the question of interest is a question of law, the facts being ascertained. (Liotard v. Graves, 3 Caines, 234.) This principle, however, as before stated, having no application to torts, in which no precise rule of damages is given.

Whatever may be the English rule, and especially since the

The case of Spencer v. Tilden, ( 5 Cow. 144 ,) in which the contract was held to be a contract to deliver 12 cows and 12 calves, the court held the plaintiff entitled to their value, with interest from the day when they should have been delivered. Even the defendant’s counsel conceded there, that if the contract was not usurious, this was the rule of damages.

So in Lush v. Druse, 4 Wend. 313 ; Van Rensselaer's Exrs. v. Jewett, 5 Denio, 137 ; S. C. 2 Comst. 141, and Van Rensselaer v. Jones, 2 Barb. S. Ct. R. 643, all being actions founded on the breach of covenants for the delivery of personal property on certain days specified, the court held that interest is recoverable on the'value of the articles from the days on which they should have been delivered.

It is true, that these last named cases were covenants tor the payment or delivery of the chattels in question as rent. But I am at a loss to. discover why that can make any difference with the rule in this respect. On the contrary, it was long deemed doubtful whether interest on rent could be collected, even when payable in money. And be it observed, that these covenants did not, like Gleason v. Pinney, ( 5 Wend. 393 ,) provide for the payment of a sum certain in specific chattels, but were simply covenants to deliver so many bushels of wheat, &c., on the breach of which the damages were unliquidated in every sense in which that term can be applied to the damages in the present case. And after much discussion, and a very full, careful and extended consideration in the supreme court and in the court of appeals, the value on the day, &c., with interest thereon, is held to be the rule of damages;

I am aware that it may be said, that the defendants in those cases had enjoyed the consideration for their contract—the plaintiff was enforcing the collection of a debt, but I do not discover how that should affect the rule of damages. The

In the case now before the court, there was consideration enough for the defendant’s promise. Had the whole consideration money been paid, he would have been under no higher legal obligation to deliver; it was a clear and well ascertained duty the defendant was required to perform on the day'—to deliver the chattels, and on default to pay the difference before mentioned. In both cases the defendant was bound to make good his contract, and indemnify the plaintiff for the loss he had sustained. The market value of the goods was well known, and nothing but computation remained to be done.

To these cases is to be added Beals v. Terry, decided by the superior court of this city in general term, (2 Sandford, 127,) in which, it being a case like the present, it is distinctly held that interest is recoverable.

I have not gone into an extended review of the authorities on this subject. That has been done with great ability and much research in the cases from the supreme court and court of appeals last above referred to. I find no reason to doubt that chief justice Bronson expressed the opinion of the court of appeals, in what he said in 2 Comstock, 140 ; and if so, the present case must be deemed in substance and in principle decided there.

At all events, entertaining the views above expressed, and concurring with the first judge on all the other points raised on the argument of this appeal, I am of opinion that this judgment should be affirmed.

I think the rule should be, in an action like this, that interest should be allowed as matter of law, upon the difference between the contract paid and the market value. But I feel constrained, upon the authority of the anonymous case in 1 Johns. 315 , to hold that it must be left to the jury to allow it or not. Upon the other points I concur with my associates; though I think the right to parol proof in explanation of the mark, 12¼, exceedingly doubtful.