Loeb v. Homer Compress & Mfg. Co.

Citations

• 111 La. 726
• 35 So. 843
• 1904 La. LEXIS 554

Syllabus

<p>BREACH OF CONTRACT—DAMAGES—NONSUITEVIDENCE.</p> <p>1. Plaintiff had sold to parties in New Orleans 1,250 bales of cotton then in the interior. He ordered it compressed at the local compress and shipped to New Orleans by a certain time. The compress company failing to do this, plaintiff purchased other cotton in New Orleans, at a higher price, to meet his contract of delivery.</p> <p>He is entitled to recover ,, damages from the compress company the amo mt representing the difference in price between me two lots of cotton, but, the evidence failing, to establish the price he paid for the cotton in the interior and the price he paid for that purchased in New Orleans, he should have been nonsuited.</p> <p>2. As to the claim for actual loss upon the cotton itself by reason of a falling market or deprivation of profits, there should also have been a nonsuit, the evidence failing to show:</p> <p>Firs.t, at what price he had sold the cotton in the interior to parties in New Orleans for delivery within specified dates; and,</p> <p>Second, the price at which he sold the same cotton after its tardy arrival in New Orleans.</p> <p>On Application for Rehearing.</p> <p>3. It was not the purpose of the decree heretofore handed down to hold definitely that the defendant was in default with reference to the shipment of the entire lot of cotton, and it may be that, the measure of damages is the difference between the price paid by the plaintiff for the cotton purchased in New Orleans and that at which the delayed cotton was subsequently sold. These questions will therefore be considered left open.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>