Cited by

See Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225, 232 (1875) (adopting the Hadley rule).

See Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225, 232 (1875); Peters v. Mut.

E.g., Sprangers v. Interactive Technologies, Inc., -04 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (quoting Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225, 232 (1875)), pet.

Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225, 232 (1875).

341, now generally accepted as correct, and sanctioned by this court in Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 , is that the damages which one party to a contract ought to receive, in respect of a breach of it by the other, are such as either arise naturally— that is, in the usual course of things — from the breach itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been contemplated by the parties when making the contract a

In Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225, 232 (1875), we find the following: “The rule of common law is that where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed.” We gather from Graves v. Moses, 13 Minn. 307 (335)

Paine v. Sherwood [ 21 Minn. 225 ], supra, citing Hadley v. Baxen-dale, 9 Exch.

Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 ; Webb v. *221 Michener, 32 Minn. 48 , ; Levine v. Lancashire Ins.

Carli v. Seymour, S. & Co. 26 Minn. 276 , ; Winona v. Jackson, 92 Minn. 453 , ; Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 ; Anderson v. Nordstrom, 60 Minn. 231 , .

“It is as well settled as anything in the law can be, that 'if a party, by his contract, charge himself with an obligation possible to be performed, he must make it good, unless performance is rendered impossible by the act of God, the law or the other party.’ ” Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 , following Dermott v. Jones, 2 Wall.

Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 ; City of Winona v. Jackson, 92 Minn. 453 , .

Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225, 232 ; Coxe Bros. & Co. v. Anoka W. W. E. L. & P. Co. 87 Minn. 56 , ; Alger-Fowler Co. v. Tracy, 98 Minn. 432 , ; Crowley v. Burns B. & M. Co. 100 Minn. 178, 188 , .

§ 2559; Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 ; Wilson v. Reedy, 32 Minn. 256 , .

Stees v. Leonard, 20 Minn. 448 (494); Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 .

Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 ; Carli v. Seymour, Sabin & Co., 26 Minn. 276 , ; Anderson v. Nordstrom, 60 Minn. 231 , .

341; Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 ; Day v. Gravel, 72 Minn. 159 , ; Cargill v. Thompson, 57 Minn. 534 , ; Watterson v. Allegheny, 74 Pa.

§§ 906, 907; Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 .

Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 ; Webb v. Michener, 32 Minn. 48 , .

See, also, Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 , as to form of pleading.

Converse v. Burrows, 2 Minn. 191 , (229;) Paine v. Sherwood, 19 Minn. 270 , (315,) and 21 Minn. 225 ; Beaupre v. Pacific & A. Tel.

y the plaintiffs, rather than rest his case simply on the ground of non-performance, he should be held to the issue he has tendered, whether he be benefited or prejudiced by the finding.” That case was followed in Whalon v. Aldrich, 8 Minn. 305 , (346;) Koempel v. Shaw, 13 Minn. 451 , (488;) Steele v. Etheridge, 15 Minn. 413 , (501;) Paine v. Sherwood, 19 Minn. 270 , (315,) and Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 .

341, and approved in Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 , and in Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476, 481 , is that such damages are recoverable when, from the circumstances of any particular case, they may reasonably be supposed to have been contemplated by the parties, when making the contract, as the probable result of the breach.

The court rejected the books, chiefly because the evidence of Canfield was wanting to show that the goods in question, or some of them, were delivered at the time the charges were made, within the rule laid down in Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225, 210 .