Crain v. Petrie — 6 Hill & Den. 522

Majority

p. 522

Crain vs. Petrie.

Headnote

In general, to maintain a claim for special damages, they must appear to be the legal and natural consequence of the wrong complained of, proceeding exclusively from that, and not from the improper act of a third party remotely induced thereby.

In an action for fraudulently"selling diseased sheep as sound and .healthy, it appeared that the plaintiff, who followed the business of butchering sheep, engaged one G. to take some of the mutton which might be on hand during a certain period, and sell it; but in consequence of a report that the plaintiff had purchased the defendant’s diseased sheep, G. refused to perform his contract

p. 523

Held, that the defendant was not liable for any damages resulting to the plain- . tiff from Gr.’s refusal to perform.

So as to damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of his customers refusing to deal with him because of the report that he had purchased the sheep in question.

Error to the Herkimer C. P., where Petrie sued Crain in an action on the case for deceit in the sale of sheep. Petrie carried on the butchering business in the neighborhood of Little Falls, and purchased the sheep of Crain in November, 1840, at the price of one dollar per head, for the purpose of killing them for market. They were driven to Petrie’s, put in a yard by themselves, separate from his other sheep, and slaughtered the next day. The fraud complained of was, that the sheep were diseased, and that Crain, knowing the fact, sold them as healthy sheep. The declaration alleged special as well as general damages. On the trial, the plaintiff offered to prove that he had made a contract with one Gage, a butcher at Little Falls, to take some of the hams and shoulders of the sheep which the plaintiff might slaughter during the fall and winter of 1840 and 1841, and sell them for him; but that Gage, in consequence of a report that the plaintiff had purchased diseased sheep of the defendant, refused to fulfil his bargain, even in respect to other sheep slaughtered by the plaintiff which were not diseased. The plaintiff also offered to prove that Gage and others at Little Falls, had, in consequence of the same report, refused to purchase any thing from the plaintiff’s establishment, and that he was' thus compelled to lose a large quantity of mutton which was good and"well cured. This evidence was objected to, but received by the court, and the defendant excepted. At the close of the testimony, the counsel for the defendant requested the court to charge, among other things, that the plaintiff .could only recover, if at all, the damages sustained from the purchase of the sheep in question, and not for any loss caused by his being unable to sell the mutton of his other sheep. The court refused so to charge, and the defendant again excepted. The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $150; and, after judgment, the defendant brought error.

p. 524

J A. Spencer, for the plaintiff in error.

D. Burwell, for the defendant in error.

The court below clearly erred upon the question of damages. The consequential loss which the plaintiff was allowed to prove at the trial, was too remote and speculative to come within any established rule on the subject. To maintain a claim for special damages, they must appear to be the legal and natural consequences arising from the tort, and not from the wrongful act of a third party remotely induced thereby. In other words, the damages must proceed wholly and exclusively from the injury complained of. (1 Chitty’s Pl. 395, 6; 1 Saund. Pl. and Ev. 344; Morris v. Langdale, 2 Bos. & Pull. 284,289; Vicars v. Wilcocks, 8 East, 1, 3, 4.)

This rule was violated by the court below, first, in admitting evidence of the refusal of Gage to receive and sell good and well cured hams, shoulders &c., contrary to a previous arrangement with him, in consequence of the reports that the plaintiff had purchased a lot of diseased sheep of the defendant; and second, in admitting evidence that others at Little Falls had refused to purchase, for the like reason, any hams &c. that came from the plaintiff’s establishment. The damages first mentioned, if any, arose out of a wrongful breach of contract, for which the plaintiff was entitled to an adequate remedy against Gage; and the others resulted from a want of confidence in the care, skill or integrity of the plaintiff himself, the people assuming that he might sell the meat of diseased sheep for a good and merchantable article.

Judgment reversed.